Combine selected asset previews into a single deterministic PNG with a navigable manifest for scene composition.
Compose selected library previews into a deterministic PNG and navigable manifest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | Yes | ||
| height | Yes | ||
| padding | No | ||
| item_ids | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes | ||
| manifest_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by stating the output is deterministic and includes a manifest, and it implies the operation reads selected library previews. However, it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting files, whether source assets are modified, or behavior on missing/invalid items.
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 a single sentence with no filler, and the core action and outputs are front-loaded. It is concise, though the density of ideas (deterministic PNG, navigable manifest, selected previews) could benefit from a bit more structure.
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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It omits usage distinctions, parameter semantics, and behavioral caveats, leaving the agent to infer too much from sibling names and schema property names alone.
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 should compensate, but it only loosely maps 'selected library previews' to item_ids and 'PNG'/'manifest' to the filenames. It does not explain how width, height, or padding control layout, or what constraints like the 24-item limit mean in practice.
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 states a specific verb and resource: composing selected library previews into a deterministic PNG and navigable manifest. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like compose_asset_scene_animation or plan_asset_scene, but the output format and deterministic qualifier give reasonable distinctiveness.
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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description implies it is for composing previews into a static PNG with a manifest, but it does not contrast with compose_asset_scene_animation, build_scene_bundle, or build_contact_sheet, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.