raw_manage_macros

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,' which is useful, and notes it's 'static' and 'no-argument.' However, it doesn't specify the exact side effects, whether it mutates data persistently, or what happens to existing macros. The 'inspect the command name first' advice hints at potential ambiguity but leaves the reader to figure out how to do that. Given the warning, it's adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Create or edit macros'), followed by essential qualifiers (static, no-argument, potential side effects, and the caution to inspect). Every word earns its place.

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, zero-parameter UI-triggering tool, the description covers the action and side-effect warning well. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over raw_apply_macro or how to interpret the 'inspect the command name first' step. Since the tool has no output schema and no params, the description is mostly complete for invocation but missing sibling differentiation.

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 schema coverage is 100% (no properties). The description reinforces this with 'no-argument,' so there is nothing to explain. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4; no further semantics are needed.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create or edit macros.' The verb-resource pairing is specific, and the qualifier 'Static no-argument Audacity action' clarifies it's a raw command. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like raw_apply_macro (which applies macros) or raw_manage_analyzers/raw_manage_tools (which manage other resource types). It's clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention raw_apply_macro or other management tools, nor does it state the typical scenario (e.g., 'use this to edit macro definitions in the Audacity UI'). The advice to 'inspect the command name first' is a caution but not a usage condition or alternative routing.

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