export_chop_to_parm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'via a chop() expression' usefully reveals the mechanism is a write to the target parameter's expression, but it does not say whether an existing expression is overwritten, what happens on invalid paths, or whether the result is evaluated immediately (a cook).

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?

One-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list; nothing is padded. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan, though the Args block mostly mirrors the schema property names.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition omits failure modes, whether this requires an active Houdini connection (relevant given connect_houdini/get_houdini_connection_status siblings), and what the caller should verify afterward.

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 must compensate. The Args block does clarify each of the four parameters ('Channel to export', 'Parameter to receive the export'), which resolves direction and role beyond the bare property names. It still does not specify path formats or whether a full channel list is needed, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export a CHOP channel to a parameter') and even names the mechanism (chop() expression), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near siblings such as set_expression or link_parameters, which likely also write expressions onto parameters.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus set_expression, link_parameters, or set_parameter, all of which live in the same sibling set and could plausibly achieve overlapping results. No prerequisites (e.g. target CHOP must exist/cook) are mentioned.

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