Build an audio-reactive analysis rig

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly indicates a write operation without destruction. It adds specific context about what is created (spectrum, bands, etc.) and mentions a 'stable output Null', but it doesn't disclose behaviors like idempotency (e.g., what happens if network already exists) or potential side effects on existing operators.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core verb and object, then uses a list of components. Every phrase contributes meaning without fluff or redundancy. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a strong high-level overview but omits important context such as return values, usage sequence, or dependency notes. It doesn't explain what the tool returns or how to verify the result, which is necessary when no output schema is available.

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?

With only 10% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate. It does add meaning by mapping components to parameters (e.g., 'smoothed low/mid/high bands' relates to lowHz, midHz, highHz, smoothing; 'device/file input' relates to source, device, file; 'beat gate' relates to beatThreshold). However, it leaves several parameters like name and parent without explicit semantic explanation, and the mapping is not complete for all 10 parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Create' and specifies the resource as 'a reusable CHOP analysis network' with concrete components (device/file input, spectrum, bands, envelope, beat gate, output Null). It clearly distinguishes itself from generic siblings like td_create_operator by indicating it builds a full network rather than a single operator.

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 implies its usage through the tool name and listed components, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this instead of td_create_operator when you need an audio-reactive analysis setup.'

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