Set TouchDesigner parameters

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds context about supported value types but does not disclose error behaviors, path existence requirements, or how existing parameter values are overridden.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and clearly enumerates the supported value types. There is no redundant or filler text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 setter with no output schema and robust annotations, the description covers the primary capability and parameter semantics. It does not mention error conditions or the need for the operator to exist, but idempotentHint provides some behavioral coverage, making the description sufficiently complete.

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 50% (only 'path' is described). The description explicitly explains the 'parameters' object: simple values are constants, {'expr'} objects are Python expressions, and {'bindExpr'} objects are bind expressions. This directly compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: setting parameter values on a TouchDesigner operator, explicitly listing constants, Python expressions, and bind expressions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like td_pulse_parameter (which pulses a parameter) and td_set_dat_text (which sets DAT text).

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 usage by mentioning 'in one call' and the accepted value forms, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives like td_pulse_parameter. It lacks clear exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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