Focus the Network Editor

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context: 'UI-only', 'Changes nothing in the project graph', and explains the exact UI actions (points parent, selects, homes with zoom). No contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides the 'why', and the third clarifies side effects. Front-loaded and 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?

For a simple UI tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the effect, what it changes (nothing graph-wise), and the optional animation. Adequate for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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%, but the description adds meaning: 'paths' are described as 'Operator paths to frame', and 'animate' is described as 'Let TouchDesigner animate the pan/zoom to the operators (a follow move)'. This goes beyond the schema description.

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 specific verbs ('Pan/zoom', 'frame', 'follow move') and identifies the resource ('TouchDesigner's Network Editor', 'operators'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'arrange_network' by emphasizing it's a UI-only navigation action.

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 states when to use: 'so the artist sees what the agent just built instead of hunting for it.' It implies use after creation actions. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, the context is clear and actionable.

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