Create TouchDesigner node

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses valuable behaviors: legacy bridge behavior when placement is omitted, idempotent reuse preserving coordinates, type validation with warnings on unknown types, and the return shape {node, warnings[]}. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 five sentences, each carrying distinct, necessary information: purpose, placement/idempotency, validation, return value, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler, making it efficient and scannable.

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 8 parameters (all documented), no output schema, and a non-trivial create operation, the description covers the essential context: return shape, placement behavior, type validation, and when to prefer another tool. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the placement policy ('auto' picks deterministic grid cell, 'explicit' requires coordinates), the legacy bridge behavior of omitted placement, and that reused nodes keep coordinates. This supplements the schema without repeating it.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Create a single bare operator (node) inside a parent COMP' and further specifies placement and viewer state. It explicitly distinguishes itself from higher-level create_* tools by stating 'For a complete wired+arranged network prefer a Layer-1 create_* tool,' making its scope clear relative to siblings.

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 explicit context for when this tool is appropriate: creating a single bare node, with placement options. It also gives a clear when-not by directing users to a Layer-1 create_* tool for complete wired networks. The idempotency note adds practical guidance on reuse, and the warning behavior informs users about unknown types.

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