Create datamosh / time-smear effect

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description adds rich behavioral context: it details the internals of each mode (Feedback TOP loop, Level TOP opacity, Time Machine TOP), notes the UNVERIFIED fallback for time_echo, mentions that resolution is forced to prevent flickering, and specifies the return value (container with Null TOP, exposed controls, live preview). This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, second details modes, third covers shared controls, fourth describes output. No redundant phrasing; every sentence adds necessary information. It is well-structured and easy to scan.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value (container with Null TOP output, exposed controls, live preview). It also covers mode-specific internals, fallback behavior, source options, and resolution constraints. For a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter context by stating 'All modes expose a Decay knob', tying the decay parameter to all modes, and explaining the source parameter's fallback to a built-in animated Noise TOP. It does not repeat every parameter detail but provides cohesive semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('datamosh visual effect network'), enumerates three distinct modes with clear explanations, and distinguishes itself from generic creation tools by describing what it produces (container with Null TOP, controls, preview). It is precise and unambiguous.

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 for when to use the tool (create a datamosh effect in one call) and explains parameter choices (source omitted for built-in test source), but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like create_time_echo or create_feedback_network. The mode list implicitly covers these, but explicit when/when-not guidance is missing.

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