Create strobe

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

Annotations already establish that this is not a read-only or destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact node chain used to generate the effect, the behavior with and without input_path, and the limitation that the rate is free-running in v1. It does not contradict annotations, but could have mentioned side effects like container creation or failure modes, leaving room for a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tightly written with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the next two explain the mechanics and input_path behavior, and the final sentence addresses the output and a known limitation. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical and 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?

For a creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is built, how it is composited, the output type, and a current limitation. It does not describe error handling, idempotency, or what happens if input_path is invalid, but the full schema coverage and detailed node chain make it sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interrelate in the signal chain (e.g., Rate drives LFO frequency, Duty maps to Bias, intensity drives Level brightness) and clarifies the color default. This cross-parameter context goes beyond individual schema descriptions, warranting a 4.

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 a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('beat-syncable strobe / flash layer'), immediately clarifying the intended effect. It goes beyond a generic statement by detailing the underlying mechanism (LFO CHOP, Level TOP, Constant TOP) and the output type (Null TOP), distinguishing it from sibling creation tools.

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 explanation of how the strobe works and how to optionally composite it over a source provides clear context for when to use this tool. It also notes the current limitation (rate is free-running) and suggests a future approach for beat-syncing, effectively covering use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a full 5.

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