Mascot Blink

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the required optional dependency and the fact that it emits new PNG artifacts derived from already-approved poses.

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?

Three compact, front-loaded sentences covering action, timing/prerequisite, and output. The 'Returns: {ok, written: [paths]}' line is mild duplication of the existing output schema but costs little.

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 single-purpose asset-generation step with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to run it, and the install prerequisite. Nothing essential an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 app_dir, paths, and states are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or defaulting detail (e.g. how states/paths interact with the default <app>/design/mascot/<state>.png), so the baseline of 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 ('Create closed-eye blink copies (<state>-blink.png) of the approved mascot pose PNGs'), including the exact output naming convention. It positions itself relative to the sibling mascot_assets via the 'before mascot_assets' sequencing note, though it does not contrast scope with any other sibling.

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?

'Use when: before mascot_assets' gives explicit pipeline timing, and the description names the prerequisite install ('uv sync --extra mascot'). No when-not condition or alternative-tool routing is given, which is the only gap.

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