Create body reactive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds that it creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path, lists the node hierarchy, and details the return payload with node errors, warnings, and preview. It also explains that the default synthetic source needs no camera or plugin, going beyond the basic mutation flags.

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?

Although it is a single dense paragraph, every sentence earns its place: pipeline, node list, styles, source defaults, sibling relationship, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids repeating schema details verbatim.

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 an 11-parameter creator with no output schema, the description covers the full invocation reality: what is built, how the visual styles differ, which source to choose for which scenario, and what the tool returns (paths, controls, errors, warnings, preview). This is more than enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds extra meaning by connecting visual_style to dot_size/glow_amount/trail_decay and explaining source enum options with concrete CHOP paths, which helps the agent wire parameters to behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Build a body-reactive visual driven by full-body pose tracking' — and then details the concrete components created (Null TOP, baseCOMP, Geometry COMP, Camera, Render TOP). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly calling itself the visual counterpart of create_audio_reactive.

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?

It provides clear context for source selection — synthetic for instant preview, mediapipe/osc/existing_chop for a real performer — and references create_audio_reactive. It does not name or exclude deeper pose-specific siblings like create_pose_reactive, so it lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the guidance is otherwise clear.

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