Creates a cloth flag on a pole, simulating wind-driven flapping with adjustable wind strength, dimensions, and frame count for physics animation.
A cloth flag on a pole, flapping in the wind. 깃대에 걸린 깃발이 바람에 펄럭인다. at 은 깃대 밑 위치.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| frames | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| wind_strength | No | ||
| preview_frames | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral transparency. It describes the visual result—flapping cloth flag—and the meaning of 'at', but it does not disclose whether the tool creates an object, modifies the scene, requires existing geometry, or produces a preview.
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?
The description is short and starts with the essential visual concept, but it includes a Korean translation that repeats the English sentence, adding no new information for an English-speaking agent. The note about 'at' is useful but the redundancy makes the structure imperfect.
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?
With six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It identifies the object and one parameter, but fails to explain the tool's action, the meaning of animation/timing parameters, or what the agent should expect as a result.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for six parameters. It only explains 'at' as the position at the base of the pole; width, height, wind_strength, frames, and preview_frames are left to inference from their names, with frames and preview_frames remaining ambiguous.
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?
The description clearly identifies the resource: a cloth flag on a pole flapping in the wind. It is not a tautology and conveys the visual purpose, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'create' or 'spawn' to state what action the tool performs.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wind, particles, or other scene-creation tools. The only hint is about the 'at' parameter, which is a parameter note, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.