Edit TouchDesigner node metadata

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: atomicity, prevalidation, rollback, parent-move copy-and-validate semantics, and the return format. It also clarifies that it avoids raw Python fallback, going well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 three sentences, each dense with valuable information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by atomicity/rollback details and return value. No redundant or filler words.

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 atomicity, rollback, and return results well, but it omits details about the individual boolean flags and does not mention prerequisites or error conditions beyond rollback. For a 14-parameter tool with no output schema, this leaves noticeable gaps for an agent trying to use all parameters 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 only 50%, and the seven boolean flags (lock, bypass, render, viewer, display, cloneImmune, allowCooking) have no schema descriptions. The description only refers to them collectively as "writable flags" without enumerating or explaining each. For the described parameters (name, path, color, node_x, node_y, comment, parent_path), the schema is already adequate, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented flags.

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 uses a specific verb ("edit") and enumerates the exact metadata fields: name, parent, Network Editor position, color, comment, and writable flags. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_td_node_parameters (which edits parameter values) and delete_td_node (which removes 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: it is atomic, prevalidates fields, rolls back partial failures, and explicitly states it does not use raw Python fallback, implying it is a safer alternative to execute_python_script. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top tier for explicit when/when-not guidance.

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