Apply a GLSL shader from the vault

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the precise side effect is 'node creation in TD, not file writes,' the return value is the created GLSL TOP, and it clarifies the source note format. This goes beyond the annotations but could be more explicit about error conditions.

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 somewhat dense but every sentence serves a purpose: core action, side-effect clarification, usage guidance, return value, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the operation verbs in caps. Slightly long but efficient for the complexity of the tool.

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 (reading from vault, creating a node), the description covers the key aspects: source format, action, side effects, return value, alternative tool, and required environment settings. It lacks explicit error handling information, but with no output schema, the return value description is sufficient. The prerequisites are a strong addition.

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 input schema already has complete descriptions for all 3 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics by describing the expected structure of the note (```glsl fragment block, optional vertex block, frontmatter) and clarifying that the 'name' parameter defaults to frontmatter or 'glsl1', which is already in the schema but reinforces the intended usage. This adds meaning beyond 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 description clearly states the tool's specific action: READ a shader note from the Obsidian vault and CREATE a GLSL TOP in TouchDesigner from it. It explicitly names the resource (vault note) and distinguishes itself from the sibling create_glsl_shader by noting that alternative is for inline shader code.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to apply a shader you keep in the vault; to supply shader code inline instead, use create_glsl_shader.' It also lists required configuration prerequisites (TDMCP_VAULT_PATH, TDMCP_RAW_PYTHON=on, TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=1), which informs when the tool is usable.

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