Generate a deterministic animated day-night cycle from an existing image, preserving transparency and source dimensions. Customize frames, delay, intensity, and output format.
Generate a deterministic animated day, sunset, night, and sunrise cycle while preserving transparency and source dimensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| frames | No | ||
| delay_ms | No | ||
| intensity | No | ||
| input_filename | Yes | ||
| output_filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because annotations are absent, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: deterministic output, an animated phase sequence, and preservation of transparency and source dimensions. However, it does not mention file side effects, whether the input is read-only or overwritten, or any input-image constraints, leaving the agent only partially informed.
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 one tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise rather than over-specified, though it sacrifices some useful usage context for brevity.
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?
A seven-parameter generation tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema needs far more context to be callable correctly. The description leaves parameter semantics, return behavior, and input expectations entirely 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to clarify the seven parameters, but none of them are mentioned. seed, frames, delay_ms, intensity, and format all remain unexplained, and the agent cannot infer their meanings from the prose.
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 names a concrete verb ('generate'), a specific resource ('day, sunset, night, and sunrise cycle'), and adds meaningful constraints ('deterministic', 'preserving transparency and source dimensions'). It reads as a distinct operation among the many sibling generation tools, though it never names an alternative to disambiguate from similar effect generators.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool over related siblings such as generate_rain_overlay, generate_water_reflection, or generate_scene_effect_stack. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so the agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.