Create TouchDesigner node

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

Adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: validates operator type against a knowledge base and warns on unknown types. Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), but description provides specific behavior that aids agent understanding.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence that conveys purpose and key behavior (validation). No superfluous information. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

While the description covers the core purpose and validation behavior, it lacks information about what the tool returns (no output schema) and does not explain the knowledge base or warning mechanism in enough detail for complete understanding.

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% and all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema, though it does contextualize the 'type' parameter with validation behavior. 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?

Clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a single operator (node) inside a parent COMP'). Distinguishes from specialized creation sibling tools by being generic and mentioning validation of operator type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this generic tool versus the many specialized creation sibling tools (e.g., create_audio_reactive). The description does not explain that this is the fallback for arbitrary operator types.

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