Create glitch

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

Even with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: it creates a new baseCOMP, details the internal node structure, explains the Select TOP usage due to wire-crossing constraints, clarifies no device permissions in the self-contained mode, and lists the return value (summary, JSON block, paths, knobs, errors, preview). This goes well 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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place, covering the visual effect, node construction, input modes, exposed controls, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. A bulleted list could improve scannability, but the current prose structure is acceptable and not bloated.

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 params, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what nodes are created, how the input is handled, what knobs are exposed, the return payload (including error handling), and the self-contained source behavior. There is no significant missing context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with rich descriptions for each of the 8 parameters (e.g., amount, speed, block_size). The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond re-mentioning exposed knobs and audio-binding advice, but this is not necessary given the schema's thoroughness. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly defines the resource: a glitch/corrupted-signal visual with RGB channel split, blocky displacement, and band tearing. It lists the exact node chain (noise driver, Displace TOP, GLSL RGB-shift pass, Null), distinguishing it from sibling create_* tools like create_datamosh or create_kaleidoscope. The phrase 'signature live VJ look' further clarifies its niche.

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 provides clear context for two usage modes: with input_path it glitches an existing TOP, and without it uses a self-contained noise source requiring no device permissions. It also advises binding the Amount knob to audio/beat. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls 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.