Sync project to external timecode

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

The description exposes substantial behavior beyond annotations: it creates a full node chain ('input op + Math CHOP normaliser + Null CHOP tc_out'), optionally writes project.frame via Execute DAT, and warns about LTC's missing native decoder and MTC's build-dependent availability. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then compactly covers node creation, optional timeline driving, and important caveats. Every sentence earns its place; it is detailed but not bloated.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be created (tc_out, channels, Execute DAT), how it behaves, and what limitations exist. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's effects and prerequisites.

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 already has a detailed description. The tool description adds some global behavioral context (e.g., MTC availability) but doesn't materially enhance per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Wire an external SMPTE/MTC/LTC/OSC timecode source into the TouchDesigner timeline.' It clearly distinguishes itself from related siblings like create_ltc_timecode_bridge by covering multiple timecode standards and the timeline-driving 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 provides clear context and a key prerequisite: 'Requires the project to be playing — paused TD will not advance.' It also flags LTC and MTC caveats. However, it doesn't explicitly name when alternatives like create_ltc_timecode_bridge or sync_external_clock should be preferred.

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