Insert operator at the active selection

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

The description richly discloses behaviors beyond annotations: atomicity, compare-and-swap semantics, idempotency replay, bounded before/after connector receipts, rollback state, preservation of fan-out siblings, and the use of an authenticated bridge with ALLOW_EXEC=0. This far exceeds the minimal readOnly/destructive hints and accurately characterizes the tool's side effects and safety guarantees.

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, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by essential constraints and safety details. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler, making it dense yet concise.

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 tool's complexity (atomic mutation with compare-and-swap, idempotency, rollback) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers operation, prerequisites, return receipts, side effects, and execution model. No critical behavioral aspect is left unexplained.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), including type patterns, idempotency semantics, and expected_context requirements. The tool description reinforces the importance of idempotency_key and compare-and-swap but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action: 'Atomically insert one same-family operator on one deterministic downstream edge of the exactly selected/current TouchDesigner operator.' It specifies the verb, resource, and precise location, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_td_node or connect_nodes by emphasizing the atomic, context-compare, single-edge insertion.

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 provides clear context for use: requires an 'exact editor-context compare-and-swap' and an 'idempotency key', and explicitly contrasts with unsafe alternatives by stating 'it never invokes raw Python, mouse-interactive placeOPs, or implicit pane selection.' It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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