Create control panel

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

Annotations indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false) and no destruction (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral details: parameters are appended, bound, and each target is switched to expression mode. There is 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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the main action and covering key aspects in a single paragraph. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 moderate complexity, 3 parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers the essential usage context. It explains the purpose and parameter behavior, though it does not specify return values or error conditions, which are not critical.

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 100% schema coverage, the description clarifies each parameter's role beyond the schema: comp_path as a 'system container', controls as knob types, and bind_to as wiring to nodePath.parName targets. This adds meaningful context for correct usage.

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 purpose: 'Expose live controls on a COMP' and details the action of appending custom parameters and binding them. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creating control panels for real-time control, not general parameter animation or other operations.

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: 'Point `comp_path` at a system container and list the controls; use each control's `bind_to` to wire it...' It explains how to use the tool effectively but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, though the context is sufficient.

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