framerudiments_effects_setup

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

Annotations already declare a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds context beyond that: it is asynchronous, returns a retained background job, and carries write/download/network effect flags. It also warns that additional conditional inference/download effects may apply depending on the component, which is real behavioral disclosure. It stops short of saying whether re-running is safe or what happens to an existing installed runtime.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is downloaded/built, followed by the async contract and the effect-flag caveat. Every clause carries information, though the final 'inspect danceflow_component' pointer could be folded more cleanly into the effect-flag sentence.

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?

The async job contract and permission-flag warning are the right things to surface, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. What is missing is guidance on the engine choice and the directory/parallel arguments for a tool whose schema leaves half its nested fields undocumented, so an agent still has gaps before invoking it correctly.

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 50%, so the description needs to compensate. It names the base effect flags (write, download, network), which partially maps to the nested permissions object, but it says nothing about the meaning of 'engine' (butterchurn vs projectm), 'directory' (presumably the install target), 'parallel', or the allow_downloads gate. The added meaning is partial rather than compensating for the gap.

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 uses a specific verb pair and resource: 'download/build one pinned canonical visualiser runtime'. The singular, pinned, canonical framing separates it from general render/preflight siblings in the framerudiments_* family. It does not name a specific sibling it replaces, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 word 'Explicitly' signals an intentional opt-in step, and the description routes the agent to danceflow_job_status for polling and danceflow_component for conditional effects. However it never states when to prefer this over nearby setup/preflight tools such as framerudiments_preflight or framerudiments_visualisers, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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