Create XY pad

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

Annotations already signal a mutating build operation (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description adds non-obvious behavior: drag is read through a Panel CHOP, u/v channel names are probed at build time (varying by TD build) with warnings on mismatch, and z_target adds a slider. No contradiction with 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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core purpose, then add operational details (Perform mode, Panel CHOP, warning behavior, optional binding). Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 an 11-parameter build tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, optional Z axis, warning conditions, and post-build binding workflow, complemented by rich schema descriptions. An explicit example target string ('nodePath.parName') would help, but the schema already gives the format.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds semantic relations beyond the schema—ranges remap normalized u/v values, z_target triggers a slider rather than a native axis, and empty x/y targets expose channels for later bind_to_channel. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 'Build' and names the resource ('a draggable 2D (XY) gesture pad'), then details what it produces (Container COMP, x/y CHOP channels, optional Z slider). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling create_* tools by focusing on this unique XY pad interaction.

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?

Provides clear usage context: open in Perform/Panel mode, drag inside to scrub X/Y live, add Z via z_target, and leave targets empty to bind later with bind_to_channel. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, but the workflow guidance is clear enough for selection.

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