Create RayTK SDF graph

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the staging dependency and the fact that it copies ROP masters, which is useful context. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing components or what happens if RayTK is not staged, but the annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the main action ('Build a RayTK SDF graph') and no redundancy with the schema. The second sentence is long but packs the essential prerequisite info. It is dense but not wasteful, though the long list of components could be slightly restructured for readability.

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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description effectively covers the graph structure and the critical RayTK staging prerequisite. The schema fills in parameter details and confirms a container COMP is created. It could explicitly state the creation of a new container COMP and the default location, but combined with the schema, the information is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter individually described (e.g., 'Add a RayTK pointLight wired to renderer input 2'). The description gives a high-level summary of the graph components but adds no extra detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Build a RayTK SDF graph' and enumerates the exact components (primary SDF, optional secondary through simpleUnion, basicMat, lookAtCamera, pointLight, raymarchRender3D, and Null TOP output). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like create_raytk_op or create_raytk_scene.

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?

It provides clear context: creating a full SDF graph from staged RayTK masters. It explicitly states the prerequisite, 'Requires RayTK to be staged with manage_packages install raytk and loaded from the staged .tox.' However, it does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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