add_envelope_point

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

The description mentions the return value (object with point index) and the value range, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing points are replaced, if the envelope must be armed, or if track_index is required. Annotations only state destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden but provides limited behavioral detail.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear purpose line and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly improved by adding track_index and a note about envelope type.

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?

With five parameters and no output schema or parameter descriptions in the schema, the description needs to be thorough. It fails to describe track_index, does not clarify track vs. FX envelopes, and lacks any prerequisites or edge cases. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for a correct invocation.

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?

The description explains envelope_name, time, value, and shape, including units and shape mappings. It omits track_index, which is a required parameter and has no description in the schema (schema coverage is 0%). This is a significant gap, but the coverage of four parameters is still valuable.

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 action ('Add a point to an envelope') and lists key parameters. However, it does not specify whether this applies to track envelopes or FX envelopes, which is needed to differentiate it from the sibling tool add_fx_envelope_point.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_fx_envelope_point or other envelope manipulation tools. The description only explains the action, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and sibling list.

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