automation_record_plugin_param

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it overwrites existing automation, requires a specific mode, or has side effects). The description merely restates the tool's apparent function.

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 very short (two sentences) without excess, but it lacks structure (no bullet list, no separation of concerns). It is concise but at the expense of helpful detail.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for reliable use. Missing definitions for key parameters like 'channel', 'param', and 'location' make the tool difficult to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'points' parameter by specifying format '{time_bars, value}', which helps understand the data structure. However, the other four parameters (channel, param, slot, location) remain unexplained.

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 'Record automation on a plugin parameter', specifying the verb 'record' and the resource 'plugin parameter'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like automation_record_channel_volume by focusing on plugin parameters. However, it does not elaborate on scope or nuance beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling automation_record_* tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection.

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