export_chop_to_parm

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details: does it overwrite existing parameter links? Is it reversible? What errors might occur? The phrase 'channel reference' is ambiguous and leaves the agent with no understanding of side effects or requirements.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It avoids padding but omits essential information needed for a tool with seven parameters, making it inefficient in practice.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the core functionality, parameter semantics, or expected outcomes, making it nearly impossible for an agent to apply 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists only four of seven parameter names (chop_path, channel, target_path, target_parm) without explaining their meaning, types, or relationships. Critical parameters like ctx, output_index, and replace_existing are omitted entirely.

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 '建立 chop() 通道引用' essentially restates the tool name 'export_chop_to_parm' without clarifying what the export does, whether it creates a link, writes data, or what 'reference' means. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like get_chop_data or create_chop_node, which also deal with CHOP data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The parameter list is not a usage guideline.

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