Make portable tox

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

The description discloses all relevant behaviors: it writes/overwrites files in `out_dir`, requires a bridge, and returns specific paths and warnings. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description confirms without 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second provides usage guidance and output summary. Information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the main action, usage context, return values, and prerequisites. It is slightly lacking in details about the manifest format or warnings, but given the detailed parameter schemas, it is largely sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds overall context but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('Save', 'write', 'copy') and clearly identifies the resource ('live TouchDesigner COMP'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'bundle_dependencies' by explicitly stating when to use each.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('packaging a finished component') and when to use an alternative ('use bundle_dependencies instead'). It also notes the prerequisite ('Requires a running bridge') and the side effect ('writes/overwrites local files').

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