Make portable tox

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

The description discloses that the tool 'writes/overwrites local files in out_dir' and 'Requires a running bridge', adding context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). It also mentions the return values. No contradiction exists, so it adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 long, starts with the core action, then gives usage guidance, prerequisites, side effects, and return values. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary workflow, side effects, and return values, but omits context for complex parameters like help_snapshot, idempotency_key, and provenance_policy. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 58%, leaving several parameters (idempotency_key, provenance_policy, expected_git_commit, operation_timeout_ms, confirmation_timeout_ms) without descriptions. The tool description provides some semantic context (e.g., out_dir receives .tox/manifest/README/docs, optional copy of docs/README) but does not explain these advanced parameters, so it only partially compensates.

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 a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('one live TouchDesigner COMP') and clearly states the output (portable .tox package with manifest and optional docs/README). It distinguishes from sibling 'bundle_dependencies' by name and use case, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this for packaging a finished component' and directs to 'bundle_dependencies instead when external media must be collected and relinked'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative sibling tool.

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