Create halftone

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

The description discloses side effects far beyond the minimal annotations: it creates a new baseCOMP under `parent_path`, pulls in sources via a Select TOP, uses inline GLSL, exposes knobs, and returns a summary plus JSON block with paths, errors, warnings, and a preview image. It also explicitly notes 'no device permissions' for the standalone source.

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 purpose and then flows logically through node creation, source handling, exposed knobs, and return value. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy, and 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return payload: summary plus JSON with container path, created node paths, output path, exposed controls, errors, warnings, and inline preview. It also covers both input modes and side effects, leaving no major gaps for an agent.

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 covers all 8 parameters with detailed descriptions, including enum semantics for `style`. The description adds minimal new parameter meaning—mostly recapping that Mix, DotSize, and Angle are exposed as knobs. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb ('Build a print/comic print-look effect') and clearly states the tool's scope: halftone dots, CMYK separation, ordered dithering, or posterized stepped colour in one GLSL pass. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the exact node structure (baseCOMP, GLSL TOP, Null output) and the optional source input.

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 explicitly explains when to use a `source` (to stylise an existing TOP) versus omitting it (self-contained animated noise source with no device permissions). It implies usage for retro print looks, but does not name alternative tools directly. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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