make_creature_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that output is PIL-drawn, one image per layer, named exactly to match the import_psd convention, and explicitly that the result is unrigged. It omits details like overwrite behavior for out_dir or error conditions, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that put the tool's identity and the kind list first, then the non-rigging caveat. Dense and largely waste-free, though the import_psd naming clause is slightly buried and lengthy.

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 a sample-generation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: output format (layered PIL images), naming convention, and the required follow-up (rig_creature). Only the handling of out_dir and any failure modes are left implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents the 'kind' parameter by enumerating all eight valid values (slime | golem | ghost | tentacle | dragon | insect | plant | mimic), but says nothing about 'out_dir' beyond its self-evident name, leaving half the parameters unaddressed.

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+resource ('procedural sample for rig_creature') and names the exact consumer it feeds. The enumerated kinds and the 'run rig_creature on it' clause clearly separate it from siblings like make_sample, make_face_sample, and make_biped_sample.

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?

Gives clear downstream context ('Not rigged: run rig_creature on it'), which tells the agent what this tool is for and what follows it. It does not, however, explicitly say when to choose it over the other make_*_sample siblings, so it stops short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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