Create iPhone depth source

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

Annotations already mark this as a write and non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable context: it creates a 'deterministic scaffold', lists generated components (color_out, depth_preview, etc.), and states it 'returns warnings where sender-specific metric depth decoding must be validated live.' This goes beyond the annotations to set expectations about scaffold nature and validation needs.

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 three sentences with zero waste. Each sentence earns its place: first states purpose, second enumerates built components, third warns about validation. Information is front-loaded and scannable.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of generated components and the scaffold's limitations. It does not cover prerequisites or error conditions in detail, but for a scaffold generation tool, the key aspects (what's built and validation warnings) are present.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds minimal param-specific value—it mentions 'optional point-cloud placeholder' which corresponds to create_pointcloud_stub, but the schema already names that. It does not explain parameter interactions or formats beyond schema.

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 'Create' and resource 'TouchDesigner scaffold for iPhone depth senders', listing concrete sender types (TDLidar, Record3D, generic NDI/OSC). It clearly distinguishes from sibling create_* tools by focusing on iPhone depth source scaffolds.

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 implies use for iPhone depth source scaffolds but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other depth cameras. Given many sibling tools for depth buses (e.g., create_realsense_depth_bus, create_azure_kinect_body_bus), explicit guidance on when not to use would strengthen this dimension.

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