bitwig_arrangement_plan

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, but only states it is read-only and plan-only. It does not describe the return format, any side effects (none expected), required permissions, or limitations. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for the AI agent.

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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the '[policy:read]' hint. It is concise and contains no unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Despite good schema coverage for parameters, the description lacks information about the output format, which is critical for a tool that generates a plan suggestion. With no output schema provided, the agent has no indication of what to expect from the response, making the tool incomplete for practical use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (goal, style, targetLengthBars), effectively documenting their meaning. The description adds no additional value beyond these schema descriptions, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides a 'plan-only arrangement suggestion' and specifies it is from a 'read-only Bitwig session snapshot', indicating a read-only planning function distinct from modification tools. However, it does not fully differentiate from all sibling tools like bitwig_session_inspect, which also inspects the session.

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 creative planning when a suggestion is needed without modifying the session, via the '[policy:read]' hint and 'plan-only' phrasing. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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