Create companion surface

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readOnly, open-world mutation. The description goes beyond by outlining the behavioral steps: inferring primitives, adding bound custom parameters, creating a playable panel, and optionally attaching a read-only preflight report. This gives a solid mental model of side effects, though it doesn't detail exact mutations to source/comp_path.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the main verb and uses a colon-delimited list of concrete actions, the second gives a succinct usage note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 12-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides an adequate high-level overview of the workflow and expected outcome. It could mention what the tool returns or what the created surface is, but given the schema's richness, it is sufficiently complete.

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% with well-described parameters, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds workflow-level framing (e.g., 'infer primitive parameters' relates to parameters and max_controls; 'fader/cue panel' to include_faders and cue_buttons), but the heavy lifting is already done by the schema, meeting the baseline.

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's function: building a companion performance surface for an existing node/COMP. It lists concrete sub-tasks (infer parameters, add bound custom parameters, create fader/cue panel, optionally append preflight report) and the specific resource ('node/COMP'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_control_surface or auto_ui_from_params.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use after generating a component that needs a human-facing control surface without hand-wiring every parameter.' It indicates when to use the tool but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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