Create iPhone depth source

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

The description discloses that this is a scaffold, not a complete solution, and that it 'returns warnings where sender-specific metric depth decoding must be validated live.' This adds meaningful behavioral information beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false). It also lists what gets created, giving the agent a clear mental model of side effects. 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 three sentences, each dense with relevant information. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, the second lists the deliverables, and the third clarifies the scaffolding nature and warning behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 having no output schema, the description covers the key outcomes (what components are built) and the critical caveat (sender-specific depth decoding must be validated live). For a creation tool with 10 params but full schema coverage, this is complete enough. It could mention what happens on repeated calls or how to customize the scaffold further, but the description is already strong.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'TDLidar, Record3D, or a generic NDI/OSC source' which maps to the source enum, and 'optional point-cloud placeholder' which maps to create_pointcloud_stub. However, it does not add syntax, format, or behavior details for individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at 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 specific verb+resource: 'Create a deterministic TouchDesigner scaffold for iPhone depth senders such as TDLidar, Record3D, or a generic NDI/OSC source.' It also enumerates the exact components built (live/video receiver TOPs, color_out, depth_preview, etc.), which distinguishes it from general create tools like create_live_source or create_point_cloud.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when creating an iPhone depth sender scaffold), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The phrase 'for iPhone depth senders such as TDLidar, Record3D, or a generic NDI/OSC source' gives solid usage context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 3.

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