Plan TD version migration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'without touching TouchDesigner', adding context that it operates purely offline. It also discloses return content (upgrade boundaries, deltas, checklist) beyond what annotations convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key safety property (read-only) and the main action. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, scope, and safety profile. It even names the three types of returned information, which, combined with the output schema, makes the tool's behavior clear for an agent.

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 each parameter having its own description, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax. It adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'plan' with a clear resource (TouchDesigner stable-version migration), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on planning migration using offline release highlights and compatibility records. It states the outcome (upgrade boundaries, compatibility deltas, operator checklist) unambiguously.

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 gives clear context: it is for planning a TouchDesigner version migration and is read-only, implying use before an actual migration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude other use cases, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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