Notch TouchEngine bridge

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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, and destructive=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'This does not validate a Notch license or target runtime; live validation remains explicit.' This discloses a limitation beyond the annotations. No contradiction; openWorldHint aligns with the explicit-validation caveat.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the main purpose and elements, the second a key caveat. Every sentence earns its place, no redundant wording, and the structure front-loads the primary action.

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 10-parameter scaffold builder with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and one limitation, but leaves ambiguities: what 'guarded' means concretely, side effects on existing nodes, or relationship to siblings like create_engine_comp. Annotations provide the safety profile, but the description could clarify more about behavior and prerequisites.

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 per-parameter descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds only a general mention of 'optional Notch play/speed controls' which maps to expose_controls, but does not add new semantics 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 a specific verb ('Build') plus resource ('Notch TOP or Engine COMP/TouchEngine bridge scaffold') and lists key contents ('notes, output, optional play/speed controls'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_engine_comp or connect_touchengine_notch by framing it as a 'guarded scaffold' creation tool.

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 implies usage through the tool name and scaffolding frame, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool exclusions. The caveat about not validating licenses/runtime hints at a use case (pre-validation scaffolding), but the description does not clearly state 'use this instead of X when you need Y'.

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