Create transition (A→B)

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

Even though annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral detail: creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path, brings in sources via Select TOPs, exposes live Progress and Duration knobs, and returns summary plus JSON block with node paths, errors, warnings, and preview image. It fully explains the creation side effects without contradicting 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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes useful information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could benefit from bullet points or section breaks for readability, but overall it is well-structured for the complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (8 params, 5 styles, output specification), the description covers all essentials: what it builds, the styles, progress semantics, exposed knobs, how to drive it externally, the output Null, and the return format. No output schema exists, so the description rightly explains the return value in detail.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter docs, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining each style's implementation details (e.g., luma_wipe uses Ramp-gradient-driven moving edge via GLSL) and clarifies that omitted sources default to built-in test looks. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool builds a parameterized A→B transition over a Progress knob, the executable core of VJ cutting. It enumerates five distinct transition styles with concrete implementations (Cross TOP, GLSL ramp, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_glitch or create_layer_mixer.

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 strong context: it is the core transition builder for VJ cutting and explains how to drive it via manage_cue/bind_to_channel. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it stops one step short of full 5.

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