automation_record_tempo

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full burden. It explains that points are sequenced live with REC flags to create a real automation clip, providing some insight. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., transport state, arm condition) and potential destructiveness (e.g., overwriting existing automation).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, follow-up with parameter details. No redundant or unnecessary information. Efficiently communicates key points.

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 simple 1-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and parameter format. However, missing behavioral details like whether it creates a new clip or modifies existing, and edge cases (minimum points, BPM limits). Still, it is mostly complete given the context of sibling tools.

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's explanation of the points format (list of {time_bars: float, bpm: float}) adds critical meaning beyond the vague array-of-objects schema. It clarifies expected keys and types, though constraints like ordering or valid ranges are omitted.

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 an automation ramp on the master tempo', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling automation record tools (e.g., channel, mixer, plugin) by explicitly naming the target as master tempo.

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 for master tempo automation, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not or alternative tool names are given.

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