Create kaleidoscope

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses what gets created under parent_path (baseCOMP, source, GLSL fold pass, Null output), the optional noise-source behavior, and the return payload including paths, controls, errors, and preview. It does not cover every edge case such as overwrites or invalid parent paths, but the added detail is substantial.

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 efficient, with every sentence contributing value: effect definition, folding mechanics, node construction, input modes, and return format. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or tautological phrases.

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 thoroughly explains the returned JSON structure (container path, created node paths, output path, exposed controls, errors, warnings, preview image). It also covers both input scenarios and the parent_path placement, making it complete enough for a complex network-creation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters already have precise descriptions, defaults, and units in the schema. The tool description references the parameter groups (Segments/Rotation/Zoom/Center) and input_path, but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Wrap a source in a kaleidoscope / radial-mirror symmetry effect') and clearly identifies the resource being created. It distinguishes the tool from sibling creation tools by detailing the wedge-folding behavior, controls, and node structure it produces.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool and gives two explicit usage modes: pass input_path to process an existing visual, or omit it to generate a self-contained noise source. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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