Apply GLSL TOP mapping

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it builds a 'self-contained' network but does not disclose potential side effects like whether it overwrites an existing container, requires specific prerequisites, or validates the mapping. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no fluff. Every phrase earns its place by clarifying scope ('self-contained', 'pre-translated', 'foundation primitive', 'power users').

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?

Despite the complexity of the mapping object and 7 parameters, the rich schema covers parameter semantics. The description provides the missing high-level purpose and usage context. It could mention that a container COMP is created under parent_path, but that is already in the schema, so the description is complete enough for a well-documented tool.

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%, with each parameter having its own description. The tool description repeats high-level components (fragment, uniforms, channels, controls) that map to the mapping object, but adds little beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 action: 'Build a self-contained GLSL TOP network from a pre-translated mapping', with explicit components (fragment + uniforms + channels + controls). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a foundation primitive for Shadertoy/ISF importers and as a direct tool for power users, making it clear it is not the importer itself.

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 clear context on when to use: when a pre-translated mapping already exists, particularly via importers or hand-translated fragments. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the reference to importers implies that translation happens elsewhere, providing adequate usage guidance.

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