Export externalized .tox tree (git-diffable)

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing that files are written under out_dir (destructive), that the live COMP's externaltox parameter is mutated, and that out_dir must be writable by the TouchDesigner process. These specifics disclose side effects and prerequisites not covered by structured fields.

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 sentences, dense but well-organized. It starts with the core action, then explains the mechanism, side effects, and a key constraint without 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does, its side effects, recurse semantics, and filesystem requirements. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

While the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds meaningful context: out_dir must be reachable by the TD process, recurse=true externalizes descendants, and name defaults to the last path segment of comp_path. This enriches the schema information.

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 saves a COMP as a git-diffable externalized .tox tree, naming the underlying mechanism (COMP.saveExternalTox). It distinguishes this from an opaque binary save and contrasts with related tools like make_portable_tox by emphasizing per-node diffs for version control.

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 why you would use this over saving a single binary (git-diffability, per-node diffs) and describes the recurse option's behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the use case is clear.

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