Create SAM2 segmentation bridge

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description adds value by disclosing exactly what gets created (source input, mask receiver, mask_out, matte_out, preview_out) and explicitly noting that no model is bundled. This goes beyond the annotations, though it could further mention prerequisites like needing the external service to be running.

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 long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds necessary information (what it builds and what it creates/notes) with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (9 params, 2 enums) and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and created components, while the schema fully details parameters. It could be more complete by mentioning return behavior or preconditions, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and initiate a build.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 9 parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; it only lists output node names, which are not parameter meanings. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Build' and a well-defined resource: a TouchDesigner bridge surface for an external SAM2/FastSAM segmentation service. It enumerates the created nodes (source input, mask receiver, mask_out, matte_out, preview_out), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_segmentation or connect_comfyui.

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 usage via 'for an external SAM2/FastSAM segmentation service' but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It does not mention situations where this tool would be preferred over related sibling tools like create_ai_mirror or setup_segmentation.

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