Create TouchOSC layout

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, world-interacting creation tool. The description adds context by noting the output includes a JSON manifest DAT and that .tosc generation is intentionally not performed. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether existing objects are overwritten, or other behavioral traits beyond the .tosc exclusion.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second clarifies an important boundary. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and a description that only covers high-level purpose, the agent lacks guidance on the manifest structure, controls array semantics, network defaults, and the overall output shape. This incomplete context is insufficient for correct invocation, especially given the low schema coverage.

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 only 38%, leaving key parameters like send_host, send_port, receive_port, page_name, and create_manifest_dat undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters, defaults, or relationships, so the agent has insufficient information to correctly set parameters.

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 the tool creates a 'TouchOSC-oriented OSC mapping surface and JSON manifest DAT' and explicitly notes it does not generate .tosc documents. This provides a specific verb and resource while distinguishing itself from touchOSC file generation tools.

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 gives context (TouchOSC-oriented, not for .tosc) and a negative exclusion, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_control_surface or create_companion_surface. The .tosc caveat implies a boundary, but no direct usage guidance is provided.

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