Focus the Network Editor

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description explains specific effects: replaces stale selection, sets explicit current operator, suppresses focus in Perform/headless/disabled states, and returns fail-closed readback. This directly supplements the structured hints.

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 about 70 words in 4 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The final sentence about 'smooth colour highlights remain held pending live compare-and-swap proof' is cryptic but adds behavioral detail; it could be clearer but is not wasteful.

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 no output schema, but the description mentions the return type ('applied or fail-closed suppression readback'). It covers boundaries (no panes/topology) and state interactions. Given the moderate complexity and 100% schema coverage, this is adequately 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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it provides context that helps interpret the 'action' and 'framing' semantics.

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 follow one same-parent operator group in an existing TouchDesigner Network Editor,' which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like arrange_network by emphasizing 'UI-only' and 'never creates panes or changes project topology.'

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 gives clear context: it reuses the active pane, is UI-only, and doesn't change topology, implying when it's appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state clear when/when-not conditions, so it falls 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.