td_annotate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it reveals that TouchDesigner ignores the name at creation, that the reply always returns the actual path, that omitted position avoids covering other items, and that size determines which nodes td_annotations reports as covered. It also explains the behavior of the three mode variants and the rewrite-vs-add distinction between path and parent.

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 prose is dense and front-loaded, starting with purpose before diving into parameter nuances. Every paragraph contributes non-obvious operational details, and the backtick parameter references keep the structure scannable despite its length.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and an empty schema description, the description covers nearly every behavioral trap (name handling, placement, defaults, rewrite semantics). Small gaps remain around color, font_size, owner, and the empty-string default for mode, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description gives meaningful semantics to most parameters: text, title, position, size, path, parent, name, and mode. It omits color, owner, and font_size, but those are largely self-explanatory from their names; still, the description does not fully compensate for the schema's complete lack of per-parameter docs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Leave a note in the network saying what you built and why') and further defines an Annotate as a colored box with text placed beside nodes. It clearly separates this tool from its read-side sibling by noting that td_annotations will report the nodes a note covers.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Reach for this at the end of a build') and a when-not warning ('not as decoration'), plus a specific rerun-build rule for choosing path over parent. It does not name an alternative tool for reading or managing annotations, so the contrast with siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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