Save / load component (.tox)

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

The description discloses that 'save' can overwrite existing files, aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It also mentions optional folder creation, that paths are local to the TouchDesigner machine, and for 'load', the distinction between independent copy and live-linked instance. This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 a single coherent paragraph that logically covers the tool's purpose, then each action. It is slightly verbose but every sentence contributes essential information. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states what each action returns: save returns the saved path and byte size; load returns the loaded node's path, type, and child names. It covers prerequisites (paths are local), options (linked, create_folders), and edge cases (overwriting). This is exceptionally complete for a tool with 7 parameters.

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?

Although the input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant context by explaining the overall workflow, the behavior of each action, and the relationship between parameters (e.g., comp_path for save, parent_path for load). This goes beyond the schema to improve understanding.

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 clearly states that the tool builds a reusable component library by moving COMPs to/from .tox files, with two specific actions (save and load). It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_network_to_vault or save_component_to_vault by focusing on local file operations with .tox files.

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 provides explicit context for each action: 'save' writes a component to file, 'load' reads it back, with options like linked instances and folder creation. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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