Set up output

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, explaining wiring specifics (e.g., bridging via Select TOP, winop assignment) and return values including warnings. No 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 spans 4 sentences, is front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, parameter details, and return values without excess.

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?

The description explains return values (path, type, source, warnings) in the absence of an output schema, covers all output types, and notes non-fatal warnings. It could mention error cases or prerequisites but is adequate for a 5-param tool with openWorldHint=true.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds context about how parameters affect behavior (e.g., resolution is only for window, record_format for record type), and explains internal wiring details, complementing the schema.

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 routes a finished TOP to one of several output destinations (window, NDI, etc.) and creates the appropriate output node. This distinguishes it from sibling create_* tools which build visual elements, not route to outputs.

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 explicitly says 'Typically the LAST step after building a visual' and advises feeding it output from create_* tools or create_layer_mixer. This provides clear usage context, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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