Create companion surface

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, setting the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying that it will infer primitive controls, bind custom parameters, create a playable panel, and optionally append a read-only preflight report. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: the first packs the entire pipeline into a clear action list, and the second defines the exact use case. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 12-parameter builder tool with no output schema, the description adequately frames the workflow and purpose. The rich schema covers parameters, and the description supplies the missing context around 'companion surface' and when to use it. It does not explain return values or error cases, but these are not required given the lack of output schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about why parameters exist (inference, binding, hiding/limiting) but does not add syntax or format details 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Build a companion performance surface for an existing node/COMP' and enumerates concrete sub-actions (infer parameters, add bound custom parameters, create fader/cue panel, optionally append preflight report). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'connect_companion_surface' and 'create_control_surface'.

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 context: 'Use after generating a component that needs a human-facing control surface without hand-wiring every parameter.' It indicates when to use the tool but does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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