ポストプロセス設定変更

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explaining that unspecified fields are preserved and that effects require On bools to take effect. It also notes the master switch 'enabled'. This provides useful context, though it could mention any required state or permissions.

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 paragraph that efficiently lists effect categories and key usage notes without redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the high parameter count, though bullet points could improve readability.

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?

The description covers partial updates, the enable pattern, and the recommendation to check current state. However, given the complexity (54 parameters, no required params), it could mention the execution context (e.g., whether the game must be running or if it applies to the active scene). The output schema is present, so return values are covered, but overall completeness is slightly lacking.

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?

With only 2% schema coverage, the description compensates by grouping parameters into categories and explaining the enable pattern. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema by clarifying that each effect must be activated via a corresponding bool. However, it does not provide specific ranges or defaults for numeric parameters.

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 updates post-process fields, lists categories of effects, and distinguishes from the sibling tool dx12_get_post_process by recommending checking current values first. It specifies that unspecified fields remain unchanged, providing a clear verb+resource scope.

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 clear usage context: it explains the partial update behavior, the need to enable effects via corresponding boolean parameters, and recommends using dx12_get_post_process first. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it effectively with other sibling tools beyond the single recommendation.

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