Create feedback network

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the created node structure, the feedback loop mechanism ('Feedback TOP samples the Level node to close the loop'), the exposed 'Feedback' knob, and the full return payload (summary, JSON block with paths, errors, warnings, preview image). It adds substantial context about side effects and output.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise implementation details, use-case context, and an explicit alternative. Every sentence provides useful information without padding, making it appropriately sized for a tool with this 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, multi-node creation, feedback loop), the description is complete: it explains what is built, how the loop works, what the user gets back, and when to choose this over the similar sibling. The output schema is not present, but the description enumerates the return block contents, filling that gap.

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?

The input schema already covers all 6 parameters with rich descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual meaning by explaining how the parameters fit into the feedback loop (e.g., 'transformations' as an ordered chain, feedback_gain as 'loop decay multiplier'), which goes beyond individual parameter documentation.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Build a feedback-based visual system' and details exactly what it creates (baseCOMP with seed, Feedback TOP, Composite, transform chain, Level decay, optional GLSL pass, Null output). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_feedback_tunnel, making the purpose 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 final sentence provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for a general feedback look with a chosen seed type and an ordered chain of effects; for the specific infinite-zoom/rotate spiral ... use create_feedback_tunnel instead.' This clearly states when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.

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