Create displacement warp

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses substantial behavioral details: how the Displace TOP maps to parameters, that Amount and Speed become live knobs, that output is a Null TOP, and that audio mode requires an active audio device/file. It also details the JSON return payload including container path, created nodes, errors, warnings, and preview. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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 yet information-dense, leading with the core purpose and then layering implementation details, modulator explanations, fallback behavior, and return format. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical (what→how→modes→fallback→mapping→returns→pairings).

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: the node graph built, each modulator's behavior and prerequisites, the standalone source fallback, parameter mappings, exposed controls, return payload, and recommended companion tools. Nothing essential is left unspecified.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds valuable semantic context by explaining the parameter mappings (amount → displaceweight1, speed → Noise translate speed), the meaning of the three modulator modes, and that the source is pulled via a Select TOP. This enriches the schema descriptions without duplicating them, justifying a 4.

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 'Build a displacement-warp stage over a source' and specifies it as the 'heat-haze, liquid, audio-pushed pixels' tool for VJ sets. It clearly differentiates this from siblings by naming the three modulator modes (noise, second_top, audio) and the source fallback, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use each modulator: 'noise' for smooth continuous warp, 'second_top' for a custom displacement map, and 'audio' for music-reactive effects. It also notes that omitting a source builds a standalone preview over a Ramp TOP. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative warp tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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