Create deterministic animated day, sunset, night, and sunrise cycles from a source image while preserving transparency and original dimensions.
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 | ||
| manifest_filename | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Input schema / properties / manifest_filenameAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral facts: output is deterministic and both transparency and source dimensions are preserved. However, it says nothing about file writing side effects, what the required input/output filenames must point to, or what the intensity knob does to the result.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the core outcome front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail.
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 an 8-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with zero schema description coverage, one sentence is not enough. The agent cannot infer parameter meanings, expected input constraints, or the shape of the output from the description.
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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'deterministic' hints at seed, 'animated' hints at frames/delay_ms, and 'preserving transparency and source dimensions' gestures at the input image. Intensity, format, and manifest_filename are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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) plus the resource and its content (animated day, sunset, night, sunrise cycle), so an agent knows exactly what artifact is produced. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent generators like generate_water_reflection or generate_scene_effect_stack, which keeps it out of 5 territory.
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 description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. With dozens of sibling generators available, an agent gets no help deciding between this and generate_environment_pack or generate_scene_effect_stack.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.