Create XY pad

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it mentions that the pad reads drag via a Panel CHOP, that u/v drag-channel names are probed at build time and mismatches are warned, and that it creates a Container COMP. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured: it starts with main purpose, then details customization options, usage instructions, and technical specifics. Every sentence provides relevant information. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the tool's behavior comprehensively: it explains the created component, how to use it, optional Z axis, and remapping. It does not mention error handling or performance, but is adequate for selection and invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of z_target ('adds a slider when set'), the remapping via ranges, and the option to leave targets empty for later binding. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Build a draggable 2D (XY) gesture pad'. It provides specific verb (Build) and resource (gesture pad), and distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., create_audio_reactive, create_3d_scene) by specifying its unique function.

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 offers usage guidance: it explains when to use the tool (to build a 2D pad), how to customize with optional targets and ranges, and even suggests alternative use when leaving targets empty and binding later with bind_to_channel. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list direct alternatives alongside.

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