Import ISF shader

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

With annotations already indicating non-read-only and non-destructive, the description adds valuable behavioral context: URL fetches are bounded by fetch_timeout_ms, the tool returns specific artifacts (container/GLSL/output paths, controls, provenance, warnings, preview), and it requires raw Python execution. No contradiction with annotations; it does not explicitly state side effects beyond creation, but the added detail justifies a score above baseline.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, source handling, return details, and alternative tools/prerequisites. Front-loaded with the primary action and no redundant fluff. Ideal length for the tool's complexity.

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 11-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, source types, return payload, and environment prerequisites. It lacks explicit error scenarios or side-effect disclaimers, but the schema covers parameter details and the description supplies sufficient operational context for an agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by explaining how source types map to the 'source' parameter, how fetch_timeout_ms bounds URLs, how capture_preview enables inline previews, and how warnings relate to manual wiring (channel_overrides). This goes beyond the schema by linking parameters to return behavior and prerequisites.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new TouchDesigner system container containing an ISF (.fs) shader as a GLSL TOP, companion DATs, and optional live controls.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming create_glsl_shader and import_shadertoy as alternatives for other source types.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use create_glsl_shader for hand-written GLSL or import_shadertoy for Shadertoy sources.' It also states required environment variables (TDMCP_RAW_PYTHON=on, TDMCP_BRIDGE_ALLOW_EXEC=1) and describes source types (raw, file, URL) with timeout behavior, giving the agent sufficient context to choose correctly.

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