Export a look as a portable .tox into the vault

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and external side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that it saves a .tox and writes a Markdown note, and names the note fields. However, it does not disclose file overwrite behavior, error handling, or confirmation steps, which are relevant for a mutation tool without destructive hint set to true.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The main action is front-loaded, followed by important defaults and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary action, output artifacts, prerequisites, and integration points. It misses potential file conflict behavior and return values, but those are not critical given the rich schema and annotations.

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 stating defaults (folder defaults to 'Looks'), listing note fields (name, tags, etc.), and specifying that name defaults to the COMP's name. This provides context 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 saves a COMP as a .tox and writes a Markdown note, specifying the destination path and note content. It distinguishes from sibling export tools by focusing on 'portable looks' and mentioning integration with browse/tag tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from other export tools like export_network_to_vault.

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 context on when to use (artist-publishing primitive for portable looks), prerequisites (TDMCP_VAULT_PATH and running TouchDesigner bridge), and integration hints (browse_vault_library, tag_and_search_library). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or alternative tools, but the specificity helps in usage decisions.

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