Generate a stochastic variant pack from a seed look

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false; description adds that it writes to the vault, requires TDMCP_VAULT_PATH, and details the clamping/rounding/perturbation algorithm. This goes beyond the annotation flags by disclosing input probing and file output behavior, though it doesn't discuss failure modes or overwrite semantics.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, algorithm, and integration with morph_pack. No redundant phrasing; front-loaded with the core action.

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 complex tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it generates, where it writes, the environment requirement, and downstream consumer. Minor omission is return value details, but the file-based output is adequately implied.

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 descriptions provide baseline. The description adds value by explaining how delta_range scales with slider span and how comp_path is used to read customPars, which clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema. It doesn't enumerate each parameter but contextualizes the algorithm.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates N perturbed variants around an anchor look and writes a morph_pack-compatible JSON to the Obsidian vault. It identifies the specific resources (anchor parameter look, COMP customPars, vault) and distinguishes itself from morph_pack by being the generation step.

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?

Description explains the workflow (probes customPars, perturbs, writes for morph_pack unpack), implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like create_preset_morph or state when not to use it, so it gets a 4.

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