Connect Companion OSC surface

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by listing the components it creates and mentioning that target parameters are expression-bound, which is a side effect. However, it does not disclose whether existing expressions are overwritten or how reversible the changes are, though the non-destructive annotation mitigates this concern.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Build an OSC Companion-style button surface'). It uses a compact two-part structure that efficiently conveys the internal workflow and the mapping table purpose, with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (7 parameters, nested objects) and has no output schema. The description explains the build process but does not mention what the function returns (e.g., the created baseCOMP path) or any follow-up steps. Given the openWorldHint and complexity, it would benefit from clarifying the output or return value.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by explaining how buttons and the mapping table are used, but it does not significantly enhance the parameter meaning 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 clearly states the tool builds a Companion-style OSC button surface and outlines the internal structure (OSC In CHOP, Select CHOP/Null CHOP rows, expression binding, OSC Out CHOP, mapping table). However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'create_companion_surface', which likely also creates a Companion surface, causing potential ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_companion_surface' or 'create_control_surface'. The description explains what it does but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or contrasting use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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