Create Vintage Lens

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that it creates a new baseCOMP with four ordered GLSL passes, how era presets interact with per-parameter overrides, and the exact return envelope including paths, preview, warnings, and resolved strengths. This gives the agent a solid behavioral model of side effects and outputs.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second details the pipeline, the third explains presets/overrides, and the fourth lists return values. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, pipeline, preset behavior, and the full return envelope. The schema already documents each parameter, so together they provide enough information to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the chain order (distortion → chromatic aberration → vignette → grain) that ties the strength parameters together, and clarifies that era presets are overridden by individual parameters. It doesn't re-describe each parameter but enriches the overall semantics.

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 'Drape a vintage analog-film aesthetic over any TOP in one call,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the exact four-pass GLSL chain and era presets, making its function 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?

It gives clear context: use this when you want a vintage analog-film look applied to any TOP, with era presets and per-parameter overrides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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