Validate operator chain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and 'does not create or modify TD nodes' and adds the validation criteria, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects (e.g., error handling, performance). Consistent with 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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loaded with 'Read-only' immediately conveys safety. Every phrase adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, validation scope, and safe behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need description. Minor gaps like the meaning of 'documented connections' are acceptable given the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description mentions 'family/category filters' and 'version compatibility', which maps to the family/category/target_version parameters, but adds little beyond what the schema already describes.

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 ('validate') and resource ('ordered TouchDesigner operator chain'), and clarifies the validation scope (embedded docs, connections, filters, version compatibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_operator_chain or create_node_chain.

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 clearly states the context for use: validating an ordered chain against specific criteria. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the 'validate' framing provides clear context without confusion.

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