Create cube-map dome

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

Even with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already signaling that this tool creates and modifies the scene graph, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it names the exact node chain (Render TOP in cubemap mode or Select TOP, GLSL TOP sampling sTDCubeInputs[0], Null), explains the source-fallback logic, exposes that the tool creates controls (Fov and Rotation knobs), and states the structured return info (JSON with paths, errors, warnings, preview). This fully discloses side effects and matches the annotations.

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 and information-rich: each sentence contributes to purpose, pipeline, side effects, or output. While it is long, it remains front-loaded with the core intent and tradeoff. A slight restructuring into separate sections could improve scannability, but the content is efficient.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the render process, source handling, projection modes, created components, exposed controls, and the return value (summary plus JSON with paths, errors, warnings, preview). This gives an agent everything needed to correctly select and invoke the 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 all 7 parameters already provided rich details (e.g., fov gives an angular range, projection enums have explicit definitions, source has a fallback explanation). The description adds only marginal conceptual value beyond the schema, such as the note that real cube-map sampling avoids the equirect pole-pinch/seam, but does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding.

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, action-oriented phrase ('Render a true cube-map dome master') and immediately distinguishes the tool from the sibling create_dome_output, calling it 'the higher-fidelity follow-up' that only warps a flat equirectangular source. It clearly enumerates the output resource (a baseCOMP containing a cube-map source, GLSL remap, and Null output) and the two projection modes (fisheye and equirectangular).

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 explicitly names an alternative tool (create_dome_output) and explains the fidelity tradeoff, making it clear when this tool is the better choice. It also describes what happens if no source is provided (a self-contained test scene) and notes the output ends 'on a Null ready for setup_output', providing downstream pipeline context.

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