Create Nuitrack body bus

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it says the tool 'Produces a stable body_bus CHOP contract and setup notes' and warns that 'live SDK/device calibration must be validated separately.' This tells the agent about the output format and a critical limitation. The annotations only indicate read/write/destructive flags, so this extra context is valuable.

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, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second sentence describes the output and a key caveat. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a scaffold tool: it covers what is created (scaffold, CHOP contract, setup notes), the transport modes, and a necessary caveat about calibration. It does not explain return values in detail, but there is no output schema. Given the 9 parameters and lack of output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's outcome and limitations, though it could have elaborated on sample mode or the 'stable' contract.

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% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add significant extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only lightly references transport modes and output contract, which map to existing parameters like 'source' and 'channel_prefix'.

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: 'Create a TouchDesigner scaffold for Nuitrack skeleton data' with explicit transport modes (OSC, WebSocket, TCP JSON, sample). It names the resource (TouchDesigner scaffold for Nuitrack skeleton data) and the verb (Create), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_azure_kinect_body_bus or create_optitrack_tracking_bus.

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 implies usage for Nuitrack skeleton data scenarios, but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor provide exclusions. It does not name sibling tools or say 'use this instead of X'. The caveat about calibration being validated separately is more of a warning than a usage guideline.

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