Create Synesthesia / Unreal OSC preset send

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive creation operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these flags: it explains the internal construction (Constant CHOP with named channels, wiring into oscoutCHOP), the channel naming convention ('<prefix>/<control>'), and the preset port mappings. This gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool does mechanically, without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense, with no wasted words. Each sentence contributes: the core purpose, the preset details, the construction mechanism, the relationship to create_external_io, and a practical binding example. It is front-loaded with the main action and maintains focus throughout.

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 create tool with no output schema and 8 parameters, the description covers the full workflow: what gets built, how addresses are formed, how to customize overrides, and how to bind audio/analysis. It could list the default control names, but that is a minor gap given the schema permits null defaults and the description indicates the presets fill them in.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter understanding by showing how preset, prefix, port, and controls interact: it details the preset-to-prefix/port mapping (synesthesia → /syn, 6448; unreal → /unreal, 8000), and explains how control names become OSC addresses and channel names. This holistic explanation goes beyond the individual schema descriptions.

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 'Build a named OSC-out preset map for driving Synesthesia or Unreal Engine from TouchDesigner', which clearly identifies the tool's specific verb, resource, and target applications. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning itself as 'the preset layer on top of create_external_io osc_out' and detailing the preset-specific behavior (prefixes, ports), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly names create_external_io as the lower-level alternative and states this tool fills in the address templates and default control set, giving clear context for when this preset layer should be used. It lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' statement, but the positioning is strong enough to infer the appropriate usage boundary.

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