Create TouchDesigner node

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

Beyond the minimal annotations (readOnly=false, non-destructive, openWorld), the description discloses key behavioral traits: idempotently reused nodes retain existing coordinates, operator type validation against a knowledge base with non-blocking warnings, and the exact return shape ({node, warnings[]}). This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and edge cases.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by necessary behavioral details. Every sentence contributes value—purpose, placement semantics, idempotency, validation, return value, and sibling differentiation—with no redundant or verbose wording.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool creates, placement options, reuse behavior, validation, warnings, and return value. It also distinguishes from Layer-1 tools, providing sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the undefined 'legacy bridge behavior', but the description clarifies the practical impact.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema by explaining that reused nodes keep their coordinates (relevant to 'name') and that type is validated against a knowledge base (relevant to 'type'). It also reinforces placement policies, though those are already well-documented in the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a single bare operator (node) inside a parent COMP' with specific details about placement and viewer state. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that for a 'complete wired+arranged network prefer a Layer-1 create_* tool', making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, including when to omit placement (legacy bridge behavior), the semantics of 'auto' vs 'explicit' placement, and directs users to Layer-1 tools for more comprehensive network creation. It also explains that unknown types produce warnings without blocking, which informs usage decisions.

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