Manage cue

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint true). The description adds valuable behavioral context: morph crossfades over N seconds with easing via an Execute DAT, and quantize defers changes to musical boundaries. These details go beyond annotations and inform the agent about timing and scheduling behavior.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured: it first states the action, then contrasts with a sibling, explains morph and quantize, and finally mentions prerequisite. While not extremely concise, every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy. Slight improvement could be splitting into bullet points for clarity.

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?

The description covers essential aspects: cue definition, actions, morph timing, quantize musical sync, and prerequisite (create_control_panel). For a complex tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient. Missing details like error handling or constraints on comp_path are not critical but would push it to a 5.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds extra meaning beyond schema by explaining the morph mechanism (eased crossfade over duration) and the scheduling behavior of quantize ('fired immediately' vs 'defers to next beat/bar'). This additional context helps the agent understand parameter interactions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Live-performance scene system: store / recall / morph / list / delete named cues (snapshots of a COMP's custom-parameter values).' It distinguishes itself from sibling manage_presets by highlighting the unique morph capability, providing a specific verb+resource definition.

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 description states when to use the tool (for scene changes, morphing between looks) and explicitly contrasts with manage_presets: 'Unlike manage_presets, a cue can be reached with a timed morph.' It also explains the optional quantize parameter for musical timing. While it lacks explicit 'when not to use', the guidance is clear enough for the agent to select appropriately.

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