Import ISF shader

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

Annotations already convey non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world traits. The description adds useful context: URL fetches are bounded by fetch_timeout_ms, the tool returns specific artifacts (container/GLSL/output paths, controls, provenance, warnings, conditional preview), and it creates companion DATs. This meaningfully goes beyond the structured 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states core creation and output, second covers input modes and network timeout, third lists return values and alternatives. Front-loaded with the essential action, no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating return contents (paths, controls, provenance, warnings, inline preview). It covers creation scope, input flexibility, and alternatives. Nested parameter behavior is left to the schema, but overall it provides a solid decision-making picture.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description echoes source modes (raw/file/URL) and mentions fetch_timeout_ms and capture_preview, but adds little new meaning beyond the schema's own per-parameter descriptions.

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 creates a new TouchDesigner system container with an ISF shader as a GLSL TOP plus companion DATs. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming create_glsl_shader and import_shadertoy as alternatives for different source types.

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?

It specifies when to use the tool (for ISF .fs shaders from raw/text/file/URL) and provides explicit alternatives for hand-written GLSL and Shadertoy sources. It also notes runtime considerations like fetch_timeout_ms and capture_preview for headless runs, giving clear selection and usage context.

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