mascot_blink

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does reasonably well: it discloses the output artifact naming/location, the exact transformation applied to the source art, and a hard dependency requirement. It does not say whether existing files are overwritten, what happens if a pose is missing, or any failure behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the produced artifact first, followed by construction details, then defaults and prerequisites. Some clauses (the inpainting detail, the trailing warning) are dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a file-generating tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps: the required `app_dir` and optional `paths` are unexplained and overwrite behavior is unstated.

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% for all 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents the default input path pattern (`<app>/design/mascot/<state>.png`) and implies the `states` parameter via `<state>-blink.png`, but `paths` and the required `app_dir` are never explained, leaving gaps in the partial compensation.

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 states concretely what it produces: closed-eye PNG variants (`<state>-blink.png`) of approved pose images, with the visual construction spelled out (iris blobs in upper 55%, inpainting, closed-lid arcs). It is clear what the tool does, though the action verb is implied rather than stated and there is no differentiation from the sibling `mascot_assets`.

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?

It gives a clear when-not ('Never rig from a separate parts sheet') and a prerequisite environment note ('Needs the optional extra: `uv sync --extra mascot`'), which is useful context. But there is no explicit statement of when to run this versus `mascot_assets` or the other mascot/design tools, so selection guidance is only partial.

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