setup_precomp

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that two nodes are created, that downstream nodes are rewired to the Read (a non-obvious graph mutation), and that the Write path is auto-generated when omitted. It stops short of describing return values or failure modes.

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 behavioral paragraph is front-loaded and earn-worthy, but the trailing 'Args' section duplicates the input schema's descriptions word-for-word, adding length without new information. Roughly a third of the definition is redundant.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets created and the rewiring side effect, which is the essential context. Missing only explicit usage routing and any indication of the response or error behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The 'Args' block merely restates the schema descriptions for source_node, name, and path verbatim, adding no format, constraint, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Set up a precomp') and spells out the concrete result: a Write node for the source plus a Read node that reads the rendered output back, with downstream nodes rewired. That is specific enough to distinguish it from generic node creation, though it never names the close sibling setup_write to explain the boundary between 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?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself ('set up a precomp'); there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over setup_write or manual create_node/connect_nodes, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent can infer the intent but gets no routing guidance.

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