Write text, append a row, or clear a TouchDesigner DAT at a specified operator path.
Write text / append a row / clear a DAT.
path (<class 'str'>): DAT operator path.
text (str | None): Replace full text content.
appendRow (list[typing.Any]): Append a row to a table DAT.
clear (bool | None): Clear before writing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| text | No | ||
| clear | No | ||
| appendRow | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mutating nature of the tool, including 'Replace full text content', 'Append a row', and 'Clear before writing'. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, or behavior when multiple parameters are set together.
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 compact and structured as a bullet-like list with no filler. Each parameter gets a short, purposeful explanation, and the opening line summarizes the three core actions efficiently.
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 all parameters and the main behaviors, but it leaves out important usage context such as whether `text` and `appendRow` are mutually exclusive, what `clear` applies to, and what the tool returns after writing. Since there is no output schema, this missing context reduces completeness.
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 does so by explaining `path` as a DAT operator path, `text` as replacement content, `appendRow` as appending a table row, and `clear` as clearing before writing. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types.
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 states the tool writes to a DAT, with three modes: replacing text, appending a row, and clearing. This is specific enough to identify the operation, though the verb 'write' is generic and it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling `data_dat` tool.
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 what operations are available but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `data_dat`, nor any conditions or prerequisites. There are no exclusions or decision rules for choosing between text replacement, append, and clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.