Create dome output

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: it creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path holding Select/GLSL/Null nodes, explains the shader differences for fisheye vs equirectangular, exposes the Rotation knob, and notes the return payload includes node errors, warnings, and a preview image. This fully discloses side effects and expected results beyond 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 but well-structured and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose; subsequent sentences cover node architecture, controls, alternatives, caveats, and return values. Every sentence contributes new information, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by clearly enumerating the return payload (container path, node paths, output path, exposed controls, node errors, warnings, inline preview). It also explains the two projection modes, the created network structure, and the cubemap alternative. This is complete for a create-and-wire tool of this complexity.

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%, and all six parameters already have descriptive text. The description reinforces semantics (e.g., fov used by the fisheye shader, projection mode meanings) but does not meaningfully add beyond the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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: 'Remap a source TOP ... into a square single-output dome master for planetarium fulldomes / 360'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself 'the curved complement to create_multi_output's flat tiling' and referencing create_cubemap_dome as a different alternative.

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 context is explicit and comparative. It names create_multi_output as the flat-tiling alternative and instructs 'use create_cubemap_dome instead for a true cube-map render'. It also clarifies the input expectation ('another source' / 'an existing flat source'), giving the agent clear guidance on when to choose this tool.

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