generate_scene_effect_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'deterministic' and 'preserving the source', which are useful. However, it does not disclose what 'compact package' means (e.g., format, memory implications), whether effects are combined or applied sequentially, or any performance/processing expectations. For a complex tool with 11 parameters, this is insufficient.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists relevant effects. It avoids redundant detail. However, it compresses too much behavioral information, and the list of effect types is somewhat long but still efficient.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers only the primary purpose and some effect types. It lacks information on parameter semantics, output format, or how effects are combined. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description is not sufficient for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 must compensate for all parameters. It lists effect types in the description, which maps to the 'effects' parameter. But it provides no detail on optional parameters like 'seed', 'format', 'frames', 'material', 'direction', or 'particle_color'/'particle_count'. The minimal mention of 'deterministic' hints at 'seed', but leaves most parameters unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('generate') with a clear resource ('compact package of selected scene effects') and lists the effect types. It also mentions 'deterministic' and 'preserving the source', which clarifies intent. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling effect-specific tools like generate_rain_overlay or generate_water_reflection, though the bundling aspect is implied.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many effect-specific siblings (e.g., generate_rain_overlay, generate_water_reflection). It doesn't explain that this bundles multiple effects in one package, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer its purpose solely from the name '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.