Connect parking occupancy bus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Create' action is consistent and non-destructive. The description adds that it builds a scaffold with certain components, but it does not explain potential side effects, idempotency, or what actually changes in the TouchDesigner network.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the scaffold components in a compact series. It contains no filler or repetition and is appropriately concise for a scaffold-creation tool.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It gives a high-level component list but lacks usage context, alternative tool differentiation, and parameter semantics, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly for a complex scaffold.

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 only 20% (only name and parent_path have descriptions). The description mentions concepts like 'adapter source' and 'sensor maps' but does not map them to the actual parameters, and it leaves active, capacity, provider, zone_count, adapter_url, adapter_mode, and sensor_count unexplained. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and names the resource 'parking/queue occupancy scaffold', listing components like zone occupancy, sensor maps, and signage policy. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as connect_queue_length_bus or connect_people_counting_bus, and 'parking/queue' introduces some 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many similar connect_* bus creators, but the description never states why an agent should choose this one over connect_queue_length_bus or connect_people_counting_bus, nor does it mention conditions or exclusions.

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