td_create_op

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the purpose of each parameter but does not mention side effects (e.g., does it trigger events?), error cases (e.g., invalid op_type), or reversibility. The basic creation action is implied but not fully detailed.

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 structured as a docstring with an Args section, which is clear. It is relatively concise but includes examples and usage hints that earn their place. A few phrases could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides good detail. It explains each parameter and references a sibling tool for positioning. However, it lacks error handling info or return value details (though not required). It feels mostly complete for a creation tool.

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: parent (path), op_type (class name with examples), name (optional), params (optional dict), nodeX/nodeY (positions with sibling recommendation). This goes well beyond the schema which only shows types and defaults.

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 states the action 'Create a new operator' and the context 'in TouchDesigner'. It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like td_delete_op (delete) and td_get_op_info (get info). The examples of op_type help clarify the kind of resource.

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 provides guidance on when to use td_find_empty_space for nodeX/nodeY, giving a clear alternative for positioning. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as for parameter updates (use td_set_params) or other operations.

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