Refresh asset previews

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true) and open-world effects (openWorldHint: true). The description adds value by specifying the prerequisite ('Requires a running TouchDesigner bridge'), the overwrite side effect, and the return format ('returns written previews plus per-target warnings'). No contradiction with 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action verb, and each sentence adds essential information. There is no redundant or vague language.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the use case, prerequisite, side effects, and return values. It could mention what happens if the bridge is not running or clarify the file path format, but it is largely sufficient.

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 the schema fully documents the parameters. The description reiterates the structure 'targets as {node_path,file_path} plus optional width/height' but does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 it captures previews from live TOP nodes and writes them to file paths. The verb 'capture' and resource 'preview PNG assets' are specific, and the context of refreshing thumbnails is explicit. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_preview' or 'capture_to_vault'.

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 provides a clear use case: 'regenerate stale thumbnails after a network changes'. This gives context on when to use the tool. It does not specify when not to use or list alternatives, which would elevate to a 5.

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