Create Art-Net discovery panel

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the concept of a 'scaffold' with optional components, but does not disclose behaviors like whether existing components are modified or if network/hardware access is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and artifact. Every word adds meaning.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the scaffold contains, how the parameters interact, or what the tool returns. It is sufficient only as a high-level intent cue, not as a complete operational guide.

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 has only 25% description coverage, yet the description provides no parameter explanations. It mentions 'DMX In monitor, device maps, and universe maps,' which loosely correspond to include_dmx_monitor, device_count, and universe_count, but does not clarify net, subnet, active, or parent_path semantics.

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 clearly identifies the resource as an 'Art-Net DAT discovery scaffold' with optional features. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_control_panel or create_led_mapper by naming the exact artifact.

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 context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for Art-Net/DMX discovery panels, but no alternative tools are mentioned.

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