live_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the check_only dry-run behavior (report enabled without executing) and that the tool executes arbitrary commands, but says nothing about reversibility, whether a failed command raises or silently no-ops, or what the execute-path returns.

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, zero padding, with the core action and identifier format front-loaded ahead of the discovery hint and the check_only note.

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 generic, unannotated mutation gateway with no output schema, the description covers the happy path and the check_only probe but not the execute-path return value, error behavior, or which commands need args. Adequate but there are clear gaps.

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 50%. The description clarifies the category/name format via examples ('Transport/Start') and re-explains check_only, which the schema already documents. The args parameter ('flat [key, value, key, value...]') is left to the schema with no guidance in the description on which commands accept it.

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?

States a specific verb (Run) and resource (any Studio One command) with a concrete disambiguation: commands are identified by category/name exactly as in Keyboard Shortcuts, with six worked examples (Transport/Start, Edit/Undo, File/Save, etc.). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like live_undo or live_save, which are single fixed commands.

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?

Explicitly routes discovery to live_list_commands ('Use live_list_commands to discover names') and explains the check_only probe path. It does not state when to prefer the dedicated siblings (live_undo, live_save, live_set_transport) over this generic command runner, so one inference remains.

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