add_fx_envelope_point

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure. It adds useful return-value context ('point_index, value, and shown') and explains how the value is interpreted, but does not state prerequisites such as whether the FX envelope must already be armed or what happens if a point exists at the same time.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by compact argument and return notes. Every line adds practical value, especially the value-range clarification and shape enum.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential value semantics and return fields. However, it does not explain the three index parameters or mention operational prerequisites, leaving gaps an agent may need to infer.

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 should compensate. It documents time, value, and shape meaningfully, including the min..max range and JSFX dB slider behavior, but leaves track_index, fx_index, and param_index unexplained beyond their names.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Add an automation point to an FX parameter envelope.' The 'FX parameter envelope' scope distinguishes it from the generic add_envelope_point sibling, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

It explains what the tool does but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus add_envelope_point, get_fx_envelope_points, or delete/clear siblings. The reference to track_fx_get_param tells where to obtain the value range, but not when this tool should be selected.

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