add_envelope_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It omits side effects of insertion (whether points must be added in time order, what happens on duplicate times, whether this modifies automation data destructively), and gives only the return shape ('point index').

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?

Front-loaded imperative sentence followed by a tight Args list and a one-line Returns. Every line carries information; no filler.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most surface area and even states the return value. However the undocumented required track_index and the absence of any side-effect or ordering information leave a meaningful gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents envelope_name, time (seconds), value (0.0-1.0), and the full shape enum meaning — genuinely valuable detail the schema lacks — but it entirely omits track_index, which is a required parameter.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a point to an envelope'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling add_fx_envelope_point, so an agent must infer the track-vs-FX distinction from the parameter list alone.

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 on when to use this tool versus add_fx_envelope_point, add_midi_note, or the batch/clear alternatives. It gives no preconditions (e.g., envelope must be armed or exist via get_track_envelope).

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