Create blob trace

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds valuable context: it creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path, may prompt for macOS camera permission, follows a specific node pipeline, and returns a detailed JSON result. It does not mention potential overwrites or cleanup behavior, but 'new baseCOMP' implies non-destructive creation consistent with destructiveHint=false.

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 dense but efficient: four sentences cover pipeline, sibling relationships, source options, node creation, exposed controls, and return value. Every sentence carries substantive information with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 having no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns (summary plus JSON block with container path, node paths, output path, controls, errors, warnings, and inline preview). It also explains creation location, source options, and exposed controls, making it complete for a complex 13-parameter 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds pipeline-level meaning (source → monochrome → blur → threshold → Edge → Trace SOP), clarifying how parameters like pre_blur, threshold, edge_only, and invert fit together. It also ties expose_controls to the named Threshold, Blur, and LineWidth controls.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Trace the contour/outline of a blob or silhouette into vector line art' followed by a clear pipeline. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'complement to create_vector_lines (full image vectoriser) and export_sop_to_svg, and is distinct from create_blob_reactive (which tracks blob position/reactivity — it does not draw the outline).'

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?

Usage is explicitly scoped via sibling differentiation, including when to prefer alternatives (full image vectoriser vs contour trace) and what create_blob_reactive does differently. It also gives practical guidance on source selection: camera, file, synthetic (testable without a camera), or existing TOP.

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