Create external I/O

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about hardware requirements (e.g., NVIDIA GPU needed for RTMP on Windows) and tolerances for missing channels in bindings. But it does not disclose potential side effects like network modifications or behavior when creating duplicate operators.

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 dense paragraph that packs much information but lacks bullet points or clear segmentation. It is concise for the amount of content, but could be better organized for quick scanning by an AI agent.

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 17 parameters with 1 required, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers most important aspects: protocol-specific notes, hardware requirements, default behaviors. It could mention return values or error handling, but overall is sufficient for correct use.

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 description adds moderate value beyond the schema. It provides usage context for parameters like kind (explaining each value's purpose) and source_path (requiring same parent_path). However, most parameter details are already in the schema descriptions, so incremental value is limited.

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 starts with a concise statement 'Bridge TouchDesigner to the outside world' and enumerates all supported I/O types (OSC/MIDI input/output, DMX/Art-Net, RTMP, NDI/Syphon-Spout), clearly distinguishing what the tool does. It provides a specific verb ('Create external I/O') and resource, effectively differentiating from sibling tools.

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 gives context on when to use each kind (e.g., 'To discover which channel a control sends... wiggle it and read the input CHOP'), and includes validation notes ('Validate live where possible'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like other I/O tools.

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