Create SDF text

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds that it 'Creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path' (a non-destructive side effect), explains the mask-to-SDF approximation and smoothing easing, and lists exposed controls plus return JSON. This aligns with annotations while contributing meaningful implementation context.

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 every sentence provides value. However, the opening sentence is overloaded with semicolon-separated implementation details and the overall structure could be tightened into clearer chunks.

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 17-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers the rendering pipeline, creation behavior, quality tradeoffs, exposed live controls, and return format ('summary plus a JSON block with node paths, exposed controls, node errors, warnings, and an inline preview image'). This is effectively complete.

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 every parameter already has explanatory documentation. The tool description adds a little context by naming exposed controls and mentioning smoothing, but it does not materially improve on the schema's parameter semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Raymarch a text string as a signed-distance-field 3D slab.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_sdf_field and create_text_3d, making its unique output unmistakable.

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 names alternatives and differentiators: 'Distinct from create_sdf_field (primitive CSG only, no text) and create_text_3d (mesh-extruded text SOP) — this is the raymarched distance-field text look.' It also notes the approximate mask-to-SDF nature, helping the agent judge when this technique is appropriate.

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