Create interaction zones

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description goes far beyond this by disclosing exactly what gets built (motion-energy TOP, cropTOPs, scriptCHOP, Null CHOP), that output is a CHOP not a TOP, that no preview image exists, and that the synthetic source cooks clean without external assets. 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but every sentence carries essential information about the node chain, coordinate conventions, output format, and offline safety. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be slightly better structured with separation between behavior, parameters, and return value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully covers return value (summary plus JSON with container path, node paths, channel names, warnings), behavioral constraints (camera-only, no preview), and binding instructions. For a tool this complex, the description leaves little ambiguous.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics: zone coordinates are normalized rects with top-left convention mapped to TD bottom-left origin, threshold is a live tuning knob, resolution is described as cheap/bandwidth-bound, and omitting source_path yields a synthetic Noise TOP. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Define N rectangular zones over a camera / motion input' and details the resulting CHOP-based interaction system. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing camera-only motion detection, a stock-TOP chain, and CHOP output rather than a TOP preview.

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 gives strong context: it is camera-only (excludes depth cams), can use a selectTOP source or a synthetic offline-safe source, and explains the bind point for cues. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the exclusions and output nature give clear guidance on when it is appropriate.

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