Refresh asset previews

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: requires a running TouchDesigner bridge, overwrites image files, and returns written previews plus per-target warnings. This enriches the behavioral picture without contradiction.

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 key action, then use case, then requirements/return. Every sentence is purposeful, no fluff or redundancy, and it remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description covers return values ('returns written previews plus per-target warnings'), prerequisites (running bridge), and side effects (overwrites image files). It could add details about error handling or edge cases, but it is complete enough for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 schema fully documents width, height, and targets. The description mostly restates schema details (e.g., 'pass targets as {node_path,file_path} plus optional width/height') without adding new meaning or clarifying semantics beyond what is already present.

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 captures fresh preview PNG assets from live TOP nodes and writes each to its file_path, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_preview by emphasizing the write-to-file behavior and the 'regenerate stale thumbnails' use case.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use it to regenerate stale thumbnails after a network changes'. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the when-to-use scenario is clear. It also implies prerequisites (running bridge) and the target structure, offering guidance without explicit exclusions.

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