arrangement_add_automation_point

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

Discloses non-idempotence: 'NOT idempotent: repeated calls add more points.' Also mentions the return value. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; it effectively covers key behavioral traits.

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 clearly front-loaded with the main purpose and key behavioral note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, idempotency, and return, but lacks details on parameter constraints (e.g., valid track_index range) and behavior when adding a point at an existing time (overwrite? merge?). No output schema to compensate, leaving some 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 description coverage is only 40% (parameter_path and time have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what's in the schema; it merely repeats the parameter_path format. For parameters like value and curve_type, no additional context is provided. Compensation is insufficient given low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (add one automation point), the location (Arrangement view), and the target parameter type (mixer or device parameter path). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a specific automation operation.

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 says 'Use for incremental arrangement automation edits,' which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of incremental edits and the sibling list imply it's the only automation point addition tool.

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