Pulse TouchDesigner parameter

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

The description discloses the validation step, the structured .pulse() invocation, and the typed bridge errors for missing parameters or non-Pulse styles. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context about validation and error handling without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no wasted words. It efficiently covers the action, validation, error behavior, and the no-fallback constraint.

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 two-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description adequately addresses purpose, validation, invocation, and error cases. It does not specify the exact return format, but for a simple trigger action this is not critical to selecting or invoking the tool correctly.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both path and parameter, covering 100% of the parameters. The description reinforces that these must refer to an existing operator parameter but adds little beyond the schema definitions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: validate a parameter is Pulse style, invoke its structured .pulse() operation, and confirm the result. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not use raw Python fallback and performs validation first.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for existing operator parameters that need a Pulse trigger with validation and confirmation. It also notes error conditions for missing/non-Pulse parameters and explicitly excludes raw Python fallback, offering an implicit alternative. It could be more explicit about naming alternative tools like execute_python_script, but the context is sufficient.

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