Connect disguise stage

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world creation (openWorldHint=true). The description adds context by specifying the scaffold includes timeline, layer, and approval maps, and uses HTTP/OSC. However, it does not disclose side effects such as establishing network connections or whether existing components are modified, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately concise, though this brevity sacrifices detail that is penalized in other dimensions.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and sparse parameter descriptions, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the operator structure created, how API/OSC hosts are used, or what a successful scaffold looks like. The description is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage (only name and parent_path have descriptions), the description must compensate. It vaguely references 'timeline, layer' maps, relating to layer_count and timeline_count, but does not explain api_host, api_port, osc_port, or active. This leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 a specific action ('Create'), identifies the exact resource ('disguise/d3 HTTP and OSC show-control scaffold'), and lists key components (timeline, layer, approval maps). This distinguishes it from more generic sibling tools like 'scaffold_show' or 'connect_oscquery_namespace' by naming the external system and protocols.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a disguise/d3 system), typical use cases, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. This is a clear gap.

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