Delete TouchDesigner node

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It details the confirmation workflow, fallback behavior on UI unavailability, reversibility of 'bypass', the explicit TDMCP_YOLO skip policy, the wrapping in a TouchDesigner undo block, and the limitation that whole-tool undo across multiple requests is unverified. It also states the return fields (decision, action applied, final path, confirmation policy/request id, undo label). This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense but well-structured; it front-loads the core purpose and then expands on safety, modes, undo behavior, and return values. Each sentence adds useful information. The only slight issue is its length and the somewhat niche reference to 'TDMCP_YOLO', which may require external knowledge, but it is still concise for the complexity it covers.

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 that this is a destructive operation with two modes, a confirmation step, and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how each mode behaves, failure fallbacks, undo handling, and what will be returned. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 value by explaining the behavioral implications of 'mode' and the timeout parameter (e.g., 'asks the artist', 'immediate and reversible', 'bounded wait'). It does not repeat schema descriptions verbatim, and it adds context about how parameters affect the operation. This pushes it above the baseline.

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's purpose: 'Safely remove or bypass one TouchDesigner node.' It distinguishes between two modes ('delete' and 'bypass'), and the 'Safely' prefix sets expectations around destructive behavior. It is specific enough to stand apart from sibling mutation tools like swap_operator or disconnect_nodes.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'delete' asks the artist for confirmation and falls back to 'Keep' on close/timeout/error, while 'bypass' is immediate and reversible. It also mentions the TDMCP_YOLO skip policy and the undo caveat. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools (e.g., swap_operator), so it slightly loses points on explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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