Create SDF field

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and destructive=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by mentioning 'Exposes live ... controls and previews the output,' which goes beyond annotation settings. However, it does not mention side effects like the container name or overwriting behavior, though the schema partially covers that.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first gives the core purpose and output type, the second explains the CSG capabilities, and the third summarizes live controls and preview. No fluff or redundancy; it is front-loaded and efficient.

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 14 parameters and a nested CSG array, the description covers the core workflow—composing primitives with boolean ops, blending, live controls, and preview—without repeating schema details. It does not explain return values or parent_path explicitly, but those are present in the well-described schema. Slightly short of a 5 because ordering semantics and creation path are only implicit.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances the schema by grouping primitives (sphere/box/torus), boolean ops (union/intersect/subtract), smooth blending, and enumerating live controls (CameraZ/Speed/StepCount/Intensity/Rotate/ColorA/ColorB/Background). This helps the agent understand the CSG model and which params are interactive.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a programmable signed-distance-field (SDF) raymarcher in TouchDesigner as a self-contained GLSL TOP.' It further details the CSG composition and live controls, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_raymarch_scene or create_glsl_shader.

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 use for self-contained SDF raymarchers with live controls, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The 'self-contained GLSL TOP' phrasing hints at a differentiator, but there is no direct comparison to raytk or other shader tools.

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