Create voice prompt pipeline

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

Annotations only indicate read/write and destructiveness; the description adds meaningful behavioral context not captured there: 'dry-run/approval-gated' mode and the safety guarantee 'never dispatches raw hardware effects; policy and operator approval remain authoritative.' This goes beyond what annotations provide, even though it doesn't detail other side effects or return behavior.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every phrase provides unique value. No redundancy with the schema or annotations, and it is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and a key safety characteristic, but with 9 parameters, 0 required, low schema coverage, and no output schema, it omits many important details: what parameters do, what the scaffold contains, what 'dry-run/approval-gated' means for invocation, and what the return value or side effects are. It leaves a significant context gap for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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 22% (only name and parent_path have descriptions), and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the parameters, their enums, or how they relate to the tool. The enums like stt_mode, llm_target, and approval_mode have some inherent meaning, but the description adds no guidance, leaving most parameters semantically under-specified.

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?

Description has a clear verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('voice-to-prompt TouchDesigner scaffold'), further qualified by 'dry-run/approval-gated' and 'for AI Party-style workflows.' It explicitly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools by emphasizing the approval-gating and the constraint that it never dispatches raw hardware effects.

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 usage for AI Party-style workflows and for scenarios requiring dry-run or approval-gated voice-to-prompt scaffolding. It includes an exclusion ('never dispatches raw hardware effects') which helps the agent avoid using this when hardware dispatch is intended, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a clear when-not-to-use statement beyond the hardware constraint.

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