Create JFA Voronoi

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the exact node chain, self-contained nature, auto-derived pass count with override, and exposure of live controls. It doesn't dwell on side-effect specifics like exact container creation, but it conveys the main behavioral traits beyond 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?

Three sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads purpose and architecture, the second covers the exposed controls and preview, and the third clarifies a key algorithmic behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a create-oriented tool with 13 params and no output schema, the description gives a solid mental model: the GLSL TOP chain, live controls, preview behavior, and pass-count logic. It could mention the container path explicitly, but the parent_path schema covers that; overall it is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the exposed live controls (PaletteMode/SeedCount/Speed/Jitter/EdgeThickness/EdgeColor/ColorA/ColorB) and by explaining how resolution auto-derives the pass count with step_count as an override, which is extra semantic context beyond the schema.

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 ('Instantiate') and names a distinct resource (a self-contained JFA Voronoi generator as GLSL TOPs). It differentiates itself from generic shader/TOP creator siblings by describing the concrete chain and output, so an agent can confidently identify what this tool creates.

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 gives clear context: it creates a stained-glass/cell pattern generator with live controls and previews, implying use when such a Voronoi effect is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, 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.