export_chop_to_parm

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mechanism (a chop() expression is written into the target parameter), but says nothing about whether an existing expression is overwritten, whether it fails if the CHOP/channel does not exist, or whether the export persists across sessions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, source, destination, and mechanism all appear immediately. Its brevity only becomes a liability because nothing else carries the missing detail.

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?

This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, so the description should do considerably more. Missing are overwrite behavior, failure modes, and return/confirmation semantics, leaving real gaps for an agent to call it safely.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no per-parameter meaning. The four arguments (chop_path, channel_name, target_node_path, target_parm_name) can be loosely inferred as source vs destination from the prose, but the expected path syntax and parm-name format are undocumented in both places.

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 uses a specific verb ('Export') with a named resource pair (CHOP channel → parameter) and even names the underlying mechanism, the chop() expression. It is clearly distinguishable from neighbors like get_chop_data or list_chop_channels, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives such as writing an expression manually, referencing a parameter, or using get_parm_references to inspect existing bindings. No prerequisites (does the target node/parm need to exist first?) are stated.

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