Create control surface

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

Description explains that faders drive parameters and cue buttons fire scenes with optional crossfade. Annotations (non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world) are consistent. Beyond annotations, it adds behavior like 'touchable surface' and 'fire scenes'.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys core functionality and usage hint.

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 all parameters and usage pattern. Missing output schema but description adequately implies result (a container). Could mention lifecycle or post-build steps, but sufficient given complexity.

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?

Description adds significant context beyond schema: clarifies that faders drive parameters, cue buttons recall cues from manage_cue, and morph_seconds controls crossfade. This enhances understanding of nested object fields.

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 tool builds a control surface (Container COMP) with faders and buttons for live performance. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_control_panel and manage_cue.

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?

Description gives functional context: 'for live use, beyond the parameter dialog' and instructs to 'Open the container in Perform/Panel mode'. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use.

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