Generate random values for all or selected parameters within defined ranges, optionally including the seed, to explore generative art variations for a sketch.
Generate random values for all or specific parameters within their defined ranges
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newSeed | No | Also randomize the seed (default: false) | |
| sketchId | Yes | ID of the sketch to randomize | |
| paramKeys | No | Specific parameter keys to randomize (default: all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one valuable trait: values are constrained 'within their defined ranges', so an agent knows randomization respects existing bounds rather than producing arbitrary values. However, it says nothing about whether the sketch must be open first, whether the change is reversible/undoable, or what is returned.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple 3-parameter tool, though it is arguably terse enough to leave the alternative-tool routing unstated.
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 simple tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the operation, the scope selector, and the range constraint, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. The missing pieces (prerequisites, return behavior) are modest given the tool's simplicity.
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 all three parameters (sketchId, paramKeys, newSeed) are already documented, making the baseline 3. The description's 'all or specific parameters' mirrors the paramKeys default of 'all' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 ('Generate random values') and resource ('parameters'), and scopes it to 'all or specific parameters within their defined ranges'. An agent can grasp the operation immediately, though it doesn't explicitly name the contrasting siblings set_parameters / set_seed, which are the obvious alternatives in this toolset.
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 phrase 'all or specific parameters' implies usage through paramKeys, but the description never says when to prefer this over set_parameters or when to pair it with set_seed. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and schema rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.