Export a look as a portable .tox into the vault

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates a .tox and a sibling Markdown note with specific fields, defaults folder to 'Looks', requires TDMCP_VAULT_PATH and a running TouchDesigner bridge, and integrates via frontmatter. It does not contradict annotations, and the prerequisites are disclosed. It could go further by mentioning overwrite behavior or return value, but the additions are meaningful beyond the 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then details the side effects, defaults, integrations, and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers the primary operation, sidecar note contents, default folder, integration points, and runtime requirements. It lacks explicit error-handling or overwrite semantics, but for a publishing primitive the key context is present. A comprehensive summary is provided without needing to consult the schema in detail.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description reinforces the folder default and mentions slug generation implicitly, but it does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., license vs license_tier) or add syntax guidance beyond the schema. It provides marginal added value over the structured fields.

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 begins with 'Save a COMP as a `.tox` inside `<vault>/<folder>/<slug>.tox` and write a sibling Markdown note...', which is a specific verb+resource+output combination. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like make_portable_tox by positioning it as 'The artist-publishing primitive for portable looks' and by naming its integration with browse_vault_library and tag_and_search_library.

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: it is the artist-publishing primitive for portable looks and states how it integrates with vault browsing and searching. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools like make_portable_tox or save_component_to_vault, so it falls short of a 5.

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