td_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that TouchDesigner may auto-rename operators, which affects the returned paths. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing ops, permission requirements, or failure modes when ops already exist.

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 three dense sentences that convey purpose, input format, and output behavior with no filler. The key point is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 gives essential syntax for ops and wires but leaves gaps: it doesn't enumerate possible op types, explain how parent is used, or clarify how wires reference ops outside the call. The output schema likely covers return values, so the path mention is a bonus, but some invocation details remain ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the ops array structure (type, name, params, x, y) and the wires array format (from, to, optional to_in), which is critical. It doesn't explain 'parent' but that parameter is a straightforward string path.

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 that the tool builds a whole network in a single call, with a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('network'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like td_create and td_connect by combining op creation and wiring in one batch operation.

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 clear context: use this when you want to build an entire network at once. The phrase 'in ONE call' implies it is intended for batch creation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. This is clear enough for an agent to determine when to use it.

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