Export a TouchDesigner COMP as a .tox file to the project folder, with optional overwrite control for safe saves.
Save a COMP to a .tox. Never a .toe; never overwrites unless overwrite=true.
path (<class 'str'>): COMP operator path.
out (<class 'str'>): Destination .tox under the project folder.
overwrite (bool | None): Allow replacing an existing file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| overwrite | 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 available, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the main side effects and guardrails: writes a .tox, never a .toe, and never overwrites unless overwrite=true. It does not mention what happens if the target file already exists without overwrite or whether any status is returned, but the core safety-relevant behavior is explicit.
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 core behavior and constraints are front-loaded in two terse sentences, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 simple three-parameter export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it states the action, the exact file format, the destination scope, the overwrite default, and the meaning of each parameter. The only omissions are minor edge-case behaviors like exact error handling, which are not essential for an agent to select and invoke 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?
The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: path identifies the COMP operator, out is the destination .tox under the project folder, and overwrite controls replacing an existing file. This adds real meaning beyond the raw types in the schema.
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 opening phrase 'Save a COMP to a .tox' names a specific action and resource with no ambiguity. The additional constraint 'Never a .toe' makes the output format unambiguous and distinguishes this from any generic export or import tool, especially the inverse sibling project_import_tox.
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 practical guidance: only .tox files are produced, and existing files are never overwritten unless overwrite=true. It does not explicitly name the alternative import tool or describe error behavior when the destination exists without overwrite, so it stops short of a fully explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.