Create voice prompt pipeline

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

Given annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable context by emphasizing the dry-run/approval-gated nature and that policy/operator approval remains authoritative, which is beyond the structured fields. However, it doesn't detail other behavioral traits like network modification or return values.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with the second sentence adding an important safety qualifier. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters (4 with enums), no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, so the description bears a heavy burden. It provides a clear high-level purpose and a critical safety guarantee, but lacks details on how the scaffold is created, what the parameters do, or what the result looks like. For a scaffold creation tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 only describes 2 of 9 parameters (22% coverage), and the description mentions no parameters at all. It doesn't clarify the meaning or relationship of stt_mode, llm_target, approval_mode, or other fields, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Create' with a specific resource ('dry-run/approval-gated voice-to-prompt TouchDesigner scaffold') and scopes it to 'AI Party-style workflows.' This distinguishes it from common create_* siblings by its approval-gated, voice-to-prompt-specific scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like create_llm_chain.

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 phrase 'for AI Party-style workflows' gives a use context, and 'It never dispatches raw hardware effects' implies a limitation (not for direct hardware control). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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