TD Build Template (live)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default sandbox path, strict failure on unresolved items, and alias handling. However, it does not mention whether existing operators in the target parent are overwritten or preserved, nor does it describe the return value or side effects on the sandbox. This leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the core action, then lists template options, default behavior, and failure mode. Every sentence adds essential information without 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers key aspects: action, templates, default path, strict failure mode, and prerequisite. It omits the success return value and details about idempotency, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default parent path, listing template names and aliases, and noting that 'list' can be used to see available templates. This enriches the parameter meaning for the agent.

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 ('COMPILE') and clearly identifies the resource (TouchDesigner network template). It lists the actions (creates operators, sets parameters, wires connections, lays out network) and enumerates template names, distinguishing this from sibling tools like td_build_glsl or td_create_operator.

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 explains the strict failure behavior and the prerequisite (bridge running, referencing td_status). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus building operators individually or using other network tools, but the context of building a full template is implied. Slightly better guidance on alternatives would raise the score.

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