Create pixel sort

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it discloses the multi-pass odd-even transposition sort over a glslTOP feedback chain, the live-tweakable parameters, and the default noiseTOP source. This gives the agent insight into the internal mechanics and side effects (creating a component) without contradicting the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false 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?

The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then implementation details, parameter exposure, and default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how it works, key parameters, and default source. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value (the created baseCOMP), but the schema's 'name' parameter implies it. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by identifying which parameters are live-tweakable (Mix, Threshold, Iterations, Direction). However, it also mentions 'Reset' which does not appear in the schema, creating a minor inconsistency that could confuse the agent.

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 'Build a glitch-art pixel-sort effect', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_glitch by naming the pixel-sort algorithm and the signature Asendorf aesthetic, so the agent knows exactly what this tool 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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: for glitch-art pixel sorting. It explains the fallback behavior when no input TOP is provided, implying the tool is self-sufficient. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like create_glitch or create_datamosh, missing a 'use this instead of X' statement.

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