Create transient/sustain reactive

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

Discloses creation of a Null CHOP at a specified path, the output channel semantics (normalized 0..1), and the existence of a custom parameter page 'Tune' for live tweaking. With openWorldHint=true, it adds useful context about side effects such as modifying parent COMP parameters, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact sentences: first sentence explains core function and output location, second provides usage recommendation and customization details. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

Adequately covers tool purpose, output, parameter customization context, and integration with a sibling tool. Lacks explicit prerequisites for parent existence (though schema mentions it) and error handling, but is reasonably complete for a creation tool with openWorldHint.

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?

All 8 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the 'Tune' custom parameter page that exposes sensitivity and attack/release, but does not fundamentally augment schema documentation for individual parameters.

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?

Clearly identifies as a 'Layer-1 audio splitter' that separates transient and sustain from audio using two envelope followers. Distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_envelope_follower' by describing the specific dual-channel output and its use case for driving visuals independently.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: pairing with 'bind_to_channel' to drive visuals from percussion vs sustain. Implies the tool is for audio-reactive visual setups but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'create_audio_reactive'.

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