Set up face tracking

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

The description discloses key behavioral aspects: loads MediaPipe ENGINE, starts timeline, builds Script CHOP, and connects to webcam. It mentions a prerequisite (install mediapipe-touchdesigner) and notes the output format. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies state) and openWorldHint=true (external I/O), which the description supports without contradiction.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core action and efficiently details the setup steps, output, and integration. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 setup tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main workflow, prerequisites, and output format. It lacks info on failure modes or idempotency if run multiple times, but overall is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (tox_path, parent_path, num_landmarks). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only contextualizing num_landmarks with iris tracking. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 is a one-shot setup for face-landmark tracking from a webcam, specifying the verb (setup), resource (face tracking), and output (468/478-sample CHOP). It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_body_tracking by focusing on face landmarks.

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 implies usage for face tracking and mentions integration with bind_to_channel and create_data_visualization, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like setup_hand_tracking or setup_body_tracking. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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