Bind a Text DAT to a vault note

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing specific side effects: node creation and reading the note file, while explicitly stating it does NOT write to the vault. It also explains the sync behavior, return values, and configuration requirements. This addresses operational expectations comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds side effects, usage guidance, return values, and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes useful information, but the length is somewhat dense; a slight trimming could improve conciseness without losing critical context.

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 (node creation, sync behavior, external file access, return values), the description covers all essential aspects: side effects, does-not-do clarification, configuration prerequisites, and output. Since there is no output schema, the explicit list of returned fields is especially valuable. The description is complete enough for an agent to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'file' parameter pointing at a vault note and mentions sync with 'sync:true', but these details are already present in the schema property descriptions. Thus, the description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('CREATE a Text DAT in TouchDesigner'), the specific resource (a Text DAT whose `file` parameter points at a vault note), and the intended outcome (note text loads into TD). It is distinct from generic node creation siblings by emphasizing the vault binding and sync behavior.

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 usage context, including the intended visual use case ('text/lyrics source for your visuals') and a concrete integration step ('Wire the DAT into a Text TOP to render it'). It also lists explicit prerequisites (TDMCP_VAULT_PATH, TDMCP_RAW_PYTHON=on, TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=1). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficiently clear for most scenarios.

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