Set up output

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, explaining that a matching output node is created under parent_path, how window mode differs (points the Window COMP's winop), and why a Select TOP bridge is used for other types (TD wires can't cross COMP boundaries). It also discloses the return value including non-fatal warnings, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 dense but highly informative. Each sentence adds distinct value: destination list, per-type wiring logic, usage as last step, and return value. It is front-loaded with purpose and ends with outcome expectations, with no 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: prerequisites, input expectations, node creation behavior, special cases for window vs other types, and return value semantics including warnings. It is complete for its moderate complexity.

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% and each parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the purpose of the source_path ('final TOP'), how output_type affects behavior (window vs NDI/Syphon/Spout/record/Touch Out), and what happens with the created node. This adds value beyond the enum labels.

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 opens with a specific action ('Route a finished TOP to an output destination') and enumerates five distinct destination types. It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like render_output or record_movie by covering the full output-routing step, including node creation and special wiring behavior.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Typically the LAST step after building a visual' and tells the agent to feed it the output Null from a create_* tool or create_layer_mixer. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the contextual guidance is clear and practical.

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