Create pointer reactive

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

The description fully discloses side effects beyond the annotations: it 'Creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path', builds a demo by default, and reports node errors and warnings. It also states the return format ('a summary plus a JSON block with the container path, created node paths...'). This goes well beyond the basic readOnly/destructive hints and describes exactly what the agent can expect.

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 long but every sentence carries meaningful info: purpose, node structure, channel names, demo behavior, multitouch limitation, creation path, and return value. It front-loads the core purpose and organizes details logically. A slight structural improvement would be splitting into paragraphs, but it's dense and not wasteful.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is built, how to access channels (including exact paths), the demo variant, the multitouch caveat, and the return value (summary + JSON with paths, channels, controls, errors, warnings). This covers all the information an agent needs to invoke and understand the result, and even includes edge-case warnings.

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 each parameter (demo, multitouch, resolution, parent_path, sensitivity) has a clear description with defaults. The tool description adds only marginal references (e.g., 'Sensitivity knob gains every channel'), which is already in the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource statement ('Turn mouse/pointer position and click into a first-class creative seed') and then details exactly what is built: a Mouse In CHOP → normalized u/v + velocity + button on a 'pointer' Null CHOP. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_motion_reactive or create_audio_reactive by focusing on pointer input.

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 makes clear when to use the tool (for pointer/mouse reactive builds) and gives practical guidance on the demo flag ('set demo=false to build only the CHOP chain'). It also notes the multitouch limitation and that the build always uses Mouse In, effectively telling the agent that this tool is for single-pointer/mouse scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not-to' bar.

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