Create NPR painterly filter

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses significant behavior: it creates a Select→GLSL→Null chain, exposes live-tweakable params, and explicitly warns that `glsl_compile_verified` is always false offline and to verify with `get_td_node_errors`. It also notes the cost model in the schema but the description adds the offline-compile caveat and return-value structure.

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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose and then systematically cover algorithm, node chain, exposed params, and return values. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with 9 params and no output schema, the description covers the algorithm, chain creation, exposed controls, and exact return values including the compile-verification caveat. This is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (modes, defaults, ranges, cost hints). The description adds no new parameter-level info beyond mentioning Radius/Smoothness/Strength as exposed parent controls, which is a behavioral detail rather than input semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb+resource ('Apply a non-photorealistic painterly filter to an existing TOP'), and the description elaborates with three distinct modes (oil, pencil, watercolor), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_glsl_shader or create_raytk_op.

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 focuses entirely on mechanics and does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. Usage is implied (painterly NPR effect on a TOP), but there is no 'when-not' or comparison to sibling create_* tools, so guidance remains implicit.

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