Create MIDI controller map

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds key behavioral details: CC/note numbers are 'best-effort' and 'MUST be validated with real hardware', and the tool is 'HELD FROM RELEASE until hardware validation is complete'. These disclosures about reliability and external dependence are valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core action and follows with the key caveats and alternative tool. Every sentence contributes meaning, though the density might push the boundary of conciseness. Still, it is well-structured and free of 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?

Considering the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested bindings, no output schema), the description covers essential context: what gets created, device presets, auto-binding behavior, hardware validation, and the alternative. It doesn't exhaustively describe every TouchDesigner-specific output detail, but the schema covers parameters well and the description is sufficient for a capable agent.

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 description coverage is 100% and the property descriptions are already detailed (e.g., bindings explains 'Explicit control→param/cue overrides'). The description adds context for how parameters fit together (auto-binding to target COMP, preset override), but doesn't add syntactic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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: 'Build a MIDI controller preset for a supported device (apc_mini / launchpad / midi_mix / nanokontrol / generic)'. It specifies the concrete output: 'creates a midiinCHOP + a labeled bind Table DAT'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like learn_control via explicit contrast.

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 explicit guidance: 'For one-at-a-time MIDI learn of a single control, use learn_control instead.' It also clarifies the scope and override mechanism ('Explicit bindings can override or supplement the preset'), giving the agent clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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