td_set_flags

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains read-back verification before reporting success, TouchDesigner-specific flag/family restrictions, the guarantee that nothing is left half-set, and the requirement to pass the same owner. This is much richer than a generic write description.

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 longer than average, but every sentence adds necessary context: the lead states the action, the second sentence positions it against siblings, and the later paragraphs justify the read-back, error behavior, and owner requirement. The structure front-loads the core purpose and groups supporting details logically.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an open-ended `flags` object, so the description needs to explain safety, failure modes, and owner semantics. It does all of that, and even provides domain constraints (pickable on COMPs only, allowCooking refusal outside COMPs). The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be detailed here.

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%, so the description is the primary semantic source. It explains `flags` with a concrete literal example (`{"bypass": true}`) and gives `owner` meaning via the claim-scope requirement. However, `path` is not explicitly described in the prose, leaving the agent to infer it from the parameter name and required status.

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 object: 'Turn node flags on or off', followed by concrete examples (bypass, hide, stop cooking). It also explicitly positions itself as 'the write half of td_flags', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling read/list tool.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: to write flags, bypass an operator without deleting it, and as the counterpart to td_flags. It does not spell out explicit 'when not to use' conditions or alternative tools beyond td_flags, but the core usage context is unambiguous.

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