Apply post-processing

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

The description details exactly what will be created (a new baseCOMP, Select TOP, effect chain, Null TOP), how it works (pulls source in via Select TOP, wires effects in series), and what is returned (summary, JSON with paths, errors, warnings, preview). This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second explains behavior and output, third gives alternative usage. No filler; every sentence contributes value.

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 description is complete for a complex tool: it explains the node graph construction, the output structure, and alternatives, and the schema covers parameters and effect enums. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit description of the JSON return block.

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 schema already fully describes source_path, parent_path, and effects. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond restating that effects are applied in order, which the schema also says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Chain post-processing effects ... onto an existing TOP, applied in the order given.' It names the resource (existing TOP), the result (new baseCOMP with effects wired in series), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like create_color_grade and create_glitch.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use create_color_grade or create_glitch instead when you want a single dedicated effect with its own exposed controls.' It also notes in the schema that 3D-aware effects are redirected to post_passes_3d, offering clear alternatives.

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