VNyan capability bridge graph

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: graph wiring, trigger name collision handling, export vs direct slot write (with VNyan closed requirement), backup behavior, and global trigger scope. Every important behavioral trait is covered.

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 that efficiently conveys core concepts. While not broken into sections, it front-loads purpose and flows logically. Every sentence contributes value.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: actions, collisions, install modes, and constraints. Minor missing detail on return format, but overall complete.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context: explains the effect of each action (preview lists actions, install writes) and the slot parameter (advanced/fallback, requires VNyan closed, backs up).

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 it's for making post-processing effects and lights controllable via a bridge graph, with specific actions like preview and install. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vnyan_trigger and vnyan_effect by explaining the graph construction role.

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 explains when to use preview (check collisions) vs install (write graph), and notes different install modes. It does not explicitly compare to all siblings but provides sufficient context for usage decisions.

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