One source five ways

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'offline' (no external dependencies), 'deterministic' (same input yields same output), and the fixed count of five briefs. These traits are not derivable from annotations or schema, enriching the agent's understanding of what to expect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose, input, output, determinism, and usage context. Listing the five brief types makes the sentence instructional without being verbose. Every word contributes, and the structure is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure. It covers the tool's core function, safety profile, and usage timing. It could briefly clarify what a 'remix brief' contains, but given the output schema and the tool's straightforward purpose, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 the baseline is met by the schema alone. The description does not materially clarify parameter behavior beyond what the schema already states; it mentions the source broadly and the five brief types, but the schema already specifies source_path formats and the other parameters. Therefore, the description adds no significant semantic value beyond the structured field 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's function with a specific verb ('Turn...into'), identifies the input (source node, asset, or package entry), and lists the exact output (five deterministic remix briefs with named categories). It also distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools by explicitly labeling it as a planning tool for use 'before mutating' networks, making it unique among the many creation 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?

The description provides clear usage context: it is an 'offline/read-only planning tool for agents before mutating TouchDesigner networks.' This implies when to use it (as a safe pre-mutation planning step) and, with the read-only annotation, implicitly warns against expecting network changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full explicitness.

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