Make portable tox

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but description adds specifics: 'writes/overwrites local files in out_dir' and mentions return values (paths and warnings). It also notes the requirement of a running bridge, which goes beyond schema/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 pack purpose, usage guidance, side effects, and returns with no filler. Front-loaded with the action verb; efficient.

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 nested object help_snapshot and 12 params, the description covers key aspects: what it does, when to use, side effects, and what is returned. However, it omits details about the overwrite_policy and help_snapshot semantics, relying on schema for those.

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 58% (7/12 params), so description should compensate. It names out_dir and docs/README but does not explain remaining undocumented params like idempotency_key, provenance_policy, or timeout settings. Adds minimal param detail beyond 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Save one live TouchDesigner COMP as a portable .tox package on disk, then write a tdmcp-component manifest beside it...' This clearly states the tool's function and scope, distinguishing it from bundle_dependencies and other packaging tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this for packaging a finished component'; then points to an alternative: 'use bundle_dependencies instead when external media must be collected and relinked.' It also warns about prerequisites ('Requires a running bridge') and side effects.

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