Create mocap stream bridge

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

Annotations already indicate a creation action (not read-only, not destructive), and the description adds the concept of a 'scaffold' with mapping surfaces, implying a network structure setup. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, external dependencies, or what the scaffold actually does beyond the vague mapping surface mention, which is a moderate transparency gap.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope using specific terminology. It contains no redundant words or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level overview. It fails to explain what a 'bus scaffold' entails in a TouchDesigner context, how the mapping surfaces are used, or how this tool compares to similar sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 low (22%), so the description was expected to compensate, but it only vaguely references 'joint and rigid-body mapping surfaces' without connecting these to specific parameters like skeleton_count or rigid_body_count. Parameter names and enums are somewhat self-explanatory, but nuanced aspects such as source_mode differences and coordinate_space implications are left unexplained.

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 identifies the tool as creating a generic mocap bus scaffold with joint and rigid-body mapping surfaces, naming multiple supported systems (OptiTrack, Rokoko, Axis Studio, VRPN). It somewhat distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_optitrack_tracking_bus by emphasizing 'generic' and multi-protocol, though it doesn't explicitly point to alternative tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling mocap bridge tools (e.g., create_optitrack_tracking_bus, connect_xsens_mvn_mocap). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or preference indicators, leaving the agent without decision criteria for tool selection.

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