Foil Separation

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the safety profile (write op, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that result files are written to disk and their paths returned, and that a vector EPS is optional.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then modes, then best-for, then output behavior. It is compact, though the leading 'Foil Separation:' label and the mode list partially restate the title and schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex 17-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, intended input, and the fact that file paths are returned. Interactive behaviors like review_settings and credit estimation are handled in the schema, so the description is adequate without being exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 17 parameters in detail, including mode semantics and the interactive review_settings behavior. The description only restates the mode names and the vector EPS option, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('build the foil layer for the design') and enumerates the four operating modes, so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling effects like td_embroidery_effect or td_vectorizer, leaving the distinction to be inferred from the resource name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Best for' clause gives clear usage context and even input constraints ('a flat, high-contrast print design'), which is genuinely useful for selecting this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it does not reach the 5 level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.