add_fx_envelope_point

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral burden. It mentions that the tool returns an object with point_index and confirmation, which is useful, but it omits critical mutation details: whether it adds or replaces existing points, required permissions, undo behavior, or error conditions (e.g., if the FX envelope doesn't exist). These gaps are significant for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear top-line purpose, followed by labeled Args and Returns sections. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted text, though the Args/Returns formatting is slightly formal.

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 a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important context unstated. It mentions a return shape but does not cover the three index parameters, permission requirements, side effects, or failure modes, making it incomplete for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains time (seconds), value (normalized 0.0–1.0), and shape (enum mapping) for three of six parameters. The remaining three required identifiers (track_index, fx_index, param_index) are left undocumented in both schema and description, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Add an automation point to an FX parameter envelope.' This distinguishes it from the generic track-envelope sibling 'add_envelope_point' by specifying 'FX parameter envelope.' However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or further differentiate from other FX envelope tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives (e.g., 'add_envelope_point' for track envelopes). It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its appropriate context.

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