Create vertex displacement MAT

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds behavioral detail by explaining it creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path, may build a demo scene, and returns a JSON summary with node paths and preview. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 yet efficiently organized: it opens with the core purpose, then sibling distinction, then param-mode behavior, and ends with the return summary. Every sentence contributes and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, it thoroughly describes the return payload (summary, JSON block with paths, exposed controls, errors, warnings, preview). It also covers creation side effects and the demo mode, providing a complete picture for a tool with 9 parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying relationships, e.g., 'frequency is ignored when texture_path is set,' explaining that target_geo is for existing geometry vs demo mode, and confirming expose_controls binds Amount/Frequency/Speed. These details enrich the schema's 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 clearly states the tool builds a 'true vertex-shader displacement material' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tools create_depth_displacement and create_displacement_warp by noting those 'push 2D pixels' while this 'pushes mesh vertices.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope with clear differentiation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: assign to a Geometry COMP via target_geo, or omit to build a standalone demo. It also states when not to use it (for TOP-space image warps use the siblings), making the decision criteria unmistakable.

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