Create strange attractor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond this: time-dependent integration, rolling ring buffer, optional Tube SOP, deterministic CPU-geometry idiom, and exact return fields including 'errors, warnings, and an inline preview.' There is no contradiction with the 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 about 100 words and densely informative. It covers the architecture, rendering pipeline, relationship to sibling tools, critical temporal behavior, and return value format without fluff. Each sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 13 parameters with complete schema descriptions, solid annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates well. It explains the full pipeline (CHOP -> SOP -> Tube -> render), the deterministic CPU-geometry context, timeline sensitivity, and exactly what the tool returns (summary plus JSON block with container path, output path, controls, errors, warnings, inline preview). This is comprehensive for an agent to select and 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 has 100% coverage with all parameters described in detail, including defaults, bounds, and specific meanings (e.g., dt, trail_length, attractor). The description only briefly mentions 'configurable sub-steps' and 'trail_length' without adding new semantic depth beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the 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 clearly states its purpose: 'Build a strange-attractor deferred geometry generator' with specific implementation details (Script CHOP, Script SOP, optional Tube SOP). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming create_growth_system and create_particle_flock as complements, making it clear what this tool does and how it relates to others.

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 context and alternatives: 'Complements create_growth_system (L-systems) and create_particle_flock (boids) as the deterministic CPU-geometry idiom.' It also notes time-dependent behavior ('With TD timeline paused the integrator pauses too'), which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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