Create a TouchDesigner operator

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

With no useful annotation hints (all false), the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately states what the tool does but adds no extra context about side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. For a simple create operation, this is minimally viable but lacks depth (e.g., no mention of name auto-generation or parameter application).

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose, and the examples provide immediate clarity without unnecessary length.

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 6 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to structure the 'parameters' object, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to use it 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 description coverage is only 33% (type and parent have descriptions). The description adds examples for 'type' and implies 'parent' is a COMP, but it ignores x, y, name, and especially the complex 'parameters' object, which supports expression/bindExpr forms. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Create') with a clear resource ('one operator in a COMP') and provides concrete type examples (noiseTOP, audioSpectrumCHOP, baseCOMP). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_delete_operator or td_batch, and 'one operator' explicitly signals single-operator creation.

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?

Usage is implied by the action: create a single operator in a COMP. However, there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as using td_batch for multiple operators or td_set_parameters for post-creation changes. The description gives basic context but no comparative guidance.

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