Create multi-output

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the creation of a new baseCOMP under parent_path, the node structure (Select TOP, per-tile Crop, optional GLSL feather, Null outputs), and the as_windows behavior with borderless Window COMPs left closed. While it doesn't discuss failure modes or collision behavior, the destructiveHint=false annotation covers non-destructive intent, and the description is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 long but every sentence contributes. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then elaborates on edge blending, node creation, window behavior, alternatives, and return value. The structure is logical and not wasteful, though it is dense enough that a 5 would require a more concise presentation.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the created node structure, the behavior of as_windows, the overlap feature, the alternatives, and explicitly describes the return value (summary plus JSON block with all relevant paths and an inline preview). There is no obvious missing context.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the overlap parameter in depth (tiles widen into neighbors, GLSL feather fades seams), the as_windows parameter (borderless Window COMP offset, left closed for Perform mode), and the overall layout behavior. This elevates it above the baseline.

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+resource: 'Fan a master TOP across N projectors/displays' and explains exactly what each output is (cropped slice resized to projector resolution, ended on a Null). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming setup_output for single-window output and create_dome_output/create_cubemap_dome for curved/fulldome applications.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use setup_output instead for a single-window output; create_dome_output/create_cubemap_dome for curved/fulldome instead of flat tiling.' It also notes the intended follow-up (ready for setup_output) and the as_windows usage pattern (open in Perform mode).

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