Plan a visual from a description

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: 'every suggested tool, recipe and operator is validated,' 'any unavailable or invalid LLM path falls back deterministically without mutating TouchDesigner.' It also clarifies that the LLM completion is 'grounded' and 'bounded.' This is rich, additive transparency.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries useful information. No fluff, no repetition of schema field names. Highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (4 params, two planner modes, validation and fallback behavior) and existing output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: purpose, safety, mode selection, and failure handling. It leaves no critical gaps for a planning tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline applies. The description does add meaning beyond the schema by explaining the conceptual role of planner='llm' ('one bounded completion grounded in compact editor/project/recipe/operator evidence') and the fallback guarantee, which the schema's enum description does not fully convey. However, root_path and llm_timeout_ms are largely restated in schema, so it doesn't reach 5.

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: 'Turn a visual description into a read-only build plan.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling create_* tools by emphasizing 'read-only' and 'creates nothing.' The title reinforces this, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 the deterministic planner is the default and 'creates nothing,' implying use this when you want a plan rather than a mutation. It also gives precise guidance on opting into planner='llm' and describes the bounded, validated, fallback behavior. This tells the agent when and how to use the tool.

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