shuffle_channels

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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond it: it does not say whether the node is added to the current comp, whether existing connections are affected, or what the result looks like. Since the annotation bar is low, a modest score is warranted, but for a graph-mutating creation tool this is thin.

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 lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the 'Args' block duplicates schema content word-for-word rather than adding meaning, so a chunk of the text does not earn its place.

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?

With full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the minimum an agent needs to call the tool. It omits any comp/graph preconditions and any effect on existing node connections, which is a real gap for a node-creation tool, but not fatal.

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 the baseline is 3 and the parameter schema already documents input_node, from_layer, and to_layer with their default. The description merely restates those same definitions verbatim, adding no syntax, format, or constraint detail the schema lacks.

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 and resource — 'Create a Shuffle node to move channels between layers' — which lets an agent distinguish it from generic node tools like create_node or connect_nodes. It stops short of naming an explicit sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_node, connect_nodes, or setup_merge, and no statement of prerequisites (e.g. that a comp/node graph context must exist). The example layer names hint at the domain but not at selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.