Package a COMP as a .tox in the vault

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

With annotations indicating a write operation and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: the companion note content, the .tox location format, and the dependency on TDMCP_VAULT_PATH. It doesn't contradict annotations. The only gap is not mentioning overwrite behavior, but the destructiveHint=false already covers safety.

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 concise and well-structured: a main purpose sentence, a cross-reference to manage_component, and two prerequisite statements. No filler or redundancy, every sentence contributes context.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow, prerequisites, and outputs. It doesn't mention return values or error scenarios, but the detailed schema and annotations fill most gaps. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 a detailed description, including preview_top's caveat about TOP rendering. The description itself adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond restating folder/name in the path, so the 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 clearly states the tool's function: saving a TouchDesigner COMP as a .tox in the Obsidian vault and writing a companion markdown note. It uses a specific verb (save) and resource (COMP as .tox), and differentiates from siblings like save_recipe_to_vault and export_network_to_vault by focusing on reusable components and the package-to-library loop.

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 places this tool within a workflow ('completing the build→parameterize→script→package-to-library loop') and specifies prerequisites (TDMCP_VAULT_PATH, COMP must exist and be a COMP). It also mentions the inverse operation with manage_component. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative save/export tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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