reaper_add_envelope_point

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by warning about envelope availability and suggesting a fix. It implies that the operation may fail if the envelope is not writable, which is useful. Annotations already indicate it's a write, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation.

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 two sentences: first states the purpose, second gives a practical tip. No wasted words, front-loaded, and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema) and that annotations cover safety, the description is reasonably complete with the tip. It could mention behavior when a point already exists at the same time, but schema covers value meaning. Overall adequate.

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%, so all parameters are documented. The description does not add extra information about parameters; it only provides a usage tip. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 inserts one automation point on a track volume/pan or FX-parameter envelope. It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like reaper_clear_envelope or reaper_set_track_volume_db.

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 tip provides guidance on a common prerequisite (setting track to read mode if envelope can't be obtained), but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like reaper_set_track_automation_mode or explain when not to use it.

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