create3DSaberSymbolOrPortal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the 'unclipped 3840x3840' output size, the automatic 3D child scale-reset, and the parented inner world for teardrop_portal, which are genuine behavioral traits. However it omits whether the Saber plugin must be installed, which composition layers are written to, and what the tool returns or whether it is undoable.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is dense and stuffs an enum list into a description where the schema already defines the same five values, so a portion does not earn its place. The nested parentheses make it harder to parse at a glance.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and some behavior but leaves gaps: no return value, no indication of which comp the layers land in beyond the compName parameter default, and no plugin-dependency note. It is adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters, including units and defaults. The description adds only marginal meaning, mainly that the inner-world flag applies only to teardrop_portal and that endPosition supports a falling teardrop. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: creates a 3D Video Copilot Saber energy symbol or portal, and enumerates the preset shapes. No sibling tool overlaps with this purpose, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated, which keeps it just below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. createSolidLayer or applyEffect), no prerequisites such as requiring the Saber plugin installed, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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