Manage TouchDesigner community packages

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses crucial safety behaviors: reconciliation is dry-run-first, proves marker ownership, requires Delete/Bypass/Keep consent, and legacy uninstall returns a safe plan instead of deleting first. It also explicitly states what the tool never does (run third-party scripts, pip installs, model downloads, external app setup), adding significant context beyond the structured data.

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 the first sentence front-loading the core purpose, the second detailing the reconciliation safety protocol, and the third clarifying legacy behavior and explicit exclusions. Every sentence adds value, and the description is compact given the 17-parameter 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 a destructive, open-world package manager tool with 17 parameters, the description covers essential context: scope, safety protocols, consent flow, legacy uninstall behavior, and explicit non-actions. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely and understand its side effects, even without an output schema.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema offers, but it does contextualize actions like 'reconcile' and 'install' that are relevant to parameter usage.

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 list ('Search, list, inspect, doctor, install, reconcile, and uninstall') tied to a clear resource ('manifest-driven TouchDesigner community packages') and scope ('user or project scope'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on node creation or external integrations, not package lifecycle management.

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 clearly states the operational scope ('at explicit user or project scope') and explains the safe reconciliation workflow (dry-run-first, consent before pruning). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when NOT to use it, though the context is strong enough to infer its package-management niche.

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