live_edit_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the track's events are returned afterwards, that transposeUp/Down apply only to instrument parts, and that changes are reversible via live_undo, but it never warns that 'delete' is destructive, states permission/selection prerequisites, or says whether other tracks are affected.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation, and the action list plus the return/undo notes are dense and waste-free. Slightly long enumeration, but every clause carries information an agent needs to pick an action.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return behavior and reversibility reasonably well, but omits track-parameter meaning, permission or selection prerequisites, and the destructiveness of the delete action.

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 only 33% (just the 'at' field). The description compensates for 'at' by clarifying it accepts seconds or bars and is needed for split/trimStart/trimEnd, but the required 'track' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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 (edit) and resource (all events on one track in the running Studio One) and enumerates the supported actions, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like live_select_events, live_track_state, or live_command without opening the schema.

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 only routing guidance is 'Use live_undo to revert', which points to the recovery path rather than telling the agent when this tool is preferable to alternatives such as live_command or live_select_events. Usage is implied by the action list but never stated explicitly.

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