Delete TouchDesigner node

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

The description exceeds the annotations by disclosing the interactive confirmation flow ('asks the artist in TouchDesigner to choose exactly Delete / Bypass / Keep'), the fallback behavior for close/timeout/error/unavailable UI ('means Keep'), the audited skip policy (TDMCP_YOLO), undo block wrapping, and the unverified whole-tool undo. This is far beyond what destructiveHint=true implies and is crucial for a destructive tool.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds distinct value: mode behavior, safety policy, undo/return information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with external UI interaction and an open world, the description covers behavior, safety, fallback semantics, undo, and return values. Even though there's no output schema, the description explicitly lists 'decision, action applied, final path, confirmation policy/request id and undo label' which fully satisfies return-value transparency. The tool is complex, yet the description is complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already thoroughly explains each parameter (mode, path, confirmation_timeout_ms). The tool description adds some behavioral context (e.g., 'bypass is immediate and reversible') but mostly restates what the schema says. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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 opens with 'Safely remove or bypass one TouchDesigner node', which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly states the tool's core function. It also distinguishes between the two modes (delete vs. bypass), aligning with the 'delete_td_node' name and setting it apart from siblings like create_td_node and update_td_node_parameters.

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 provides clear usage context for each mode: 'delete' asks the artist and falls back to Keep, while 'bypass' is immediate and reversible. This implicitly guides when to choose each mode. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., 'disconnect_nodes' for non-destructive removal), so it falls just short of a 5.

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