Create phone gesture

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true), but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it builds a Web Server DAT, exposes specific channels, listens on all interfaces with no auth, and requires HTTPS for iOS motion permission with a fallback to touch-only. This fully discloses side effects, security implications, and platform limitations.

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?

Four sentences are efficiently packed: action, result, composability, security, and platform note. No waste, front-loaded with the core function, and all additional details earn their place. Perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.

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 sufficiently covers what the tool creates (Web Server DAT, Null CHOP), the channels produced, security posture, and platform-specific behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's full impact and prerequisites. No ambiguity about return values since the tool builds visible operators.

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 100% with descriptive parameter explanations, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the channel names (tilt_x/y/z, etc.) which helps understand the enableImu parameter, but this is a minor addition since the schema already explains each parameter's role. The description's value here is supplemental, not essential.

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 states a specific purpose: stream phone IMU and multitouch into TouchDesigner as CHOP channels. It explicitly names the output channels and distinguishes itself from create_phone_remote by noting composability on the same COMP with a different port.

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 context ('bind to anything', any browser, no app) and mentions composability with create_phone_remote, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance. The composability note helps but lacks direct 'use this when...' language.

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