switch_to_arrangement_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the switch is non-destructive, whether it affects playback, or what the return value is. For a UI-affecting action, this leaves important context unaddressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes only essential information. It earns its place without unnecessary filler or duplication of schema data.

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 view-switch tool, the description covers the action and the telemetry parameter adequately. It lacks a note on return behavior (e.g., nothing returned or success flag), but given no output schema and low complexity, the description is sufficient.

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?

The only parameter 'user_prompt' is explained beyond the schema: it tells the agent it's the original prompt for telemetry purposes. This adds meaning that the schema (with no description) lacks, fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('Ableton's main window to the Arrangement view'), clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings focused on arrangement editing or data retrieval. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool is used when you need to change the main window to Arrangement view, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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