Focus the Network Editor

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that it replaces stale selection, sets an explicit current operator, returns a fail-closed suppression readback, and does not steal focus in perform/headless states. This is valuable, though the final phrase about 'live compare-and-swap proof' is vague.

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 fairly compact but includes a final sentence about 'Smooth colour highlights remain held pending live compare-and-swap proof' that is jargony and adds little actionable value for an agent. It could be rephrased or removed, so it doesn't fully earn its place.

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 UI-only focus tool with 5 well-documented parameters, the description sufficiently covers side effects, safety, and return behavior (applied or fail-closed readback). No output schema is present, but the description adequately indicates what the agent can expect.

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% with good per-parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds the 'same-parent operator group' constraint for paths, which is not explicit in the schema, and notes that the action parameter is for auditability. This gives extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'follow' with the resource 'operator group in an existing TouchDesigner Network Editor,' and adds the same-parent constraint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like arrange_network or duplicate_network.

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 about when it is safe to use: it reuses the active pane, is UI-only, never creates panes or changes topology, and does not steal focus in Perform/headless/disabled states. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer them, so it only reaches a 4.

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