Create shader from library

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive operation, and the description adds behavioral context: it creates a GLSL TOP with live controls and self-contained built-in shaders. It doesn't contradict the annotations and provides useful operational detail beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every clause earns its place: the shader list, the GLSL TOP target, the live controls, and the differentiation from create_glsl_shader. No wasted words.

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?

Given 7 fully documented parameters, no output schema, and the tool's creation-oriented nature, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how it differs from a close sibling. It could mention potential side effects or broader alternative tools, but the core context is sufficiently 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already carry full semantic weight. The main description references speed/scale/color controls and shader names, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter-level descriptions. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Instantiate') and a concrete resource ('curated, ready-to-run full-screen GLSL shader') and names the exact shader options. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from create_glsl_shader, making its purpose 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?

The description directly contrasts with create_glsl_shader ('unlike create_glsl_shader it ships robust built-in shaders rather than taking arbitrary code'), giving clear when-to-use guidance. The 'ready-to-run' and 'VJ eye-candy' phrasing further implies the intended usage context.

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