raw_apply_macro

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 warns that the action 'may open a dialog or change project state' and advises inspecting the command name first, which is useful cautionary context. It is somewhat vague about the nature and scope of the state change, but for a no-argument raw Audacity command this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose. The 'ApplyMacro:' prefix is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and 'inspect the command name first' is a bit ambiguous, but overall every sentence contributes useful information about what the tool does and its potential side effects.

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 the tool's simplicity — zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations — the description covers the basic invocation and side-effect warning. However, it does not explain what 'defined macro' means in practice, how the command name relates to the macro, or what the agent should expect after invocation, such as results, errors, or a dialog interaction.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the empty schema already fully describes the parameters. The description reinforces this by calling it a 'no-argument' action, which adds no new parameter semantics but is consistent and sufficient.

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 verb and resource: apply a defined macro to the project. It also clarifies this is a static, no-argument Audacity action, which helps set it apart from macro management tools like raw_manage_macros, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you want to apply a defined macro to the project. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, mention alternatives such as raw_manage_macros, or describe prerequisites like whether a macro must already exist or be selected.

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