add_fx_envelope_point

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a mutating add operation and documents shape meaning and return shape, but it does not discuss edge cases, insertion behavior, or any prerequisites like envelope arming. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and includes only relevant parameter and return details, with 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?

The description covers the core semantics and return value, but gaps remain: three required index parameters are undefined, there is no mention of envelope arming or visibility requirements, and no output schema exists to fill in return details. It is functional but incomplete for an agent encountering the tool cold.

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 usefully explains time, value, and shape, including shape value meanings and value normalization. However, three required parameters (track_index, fx_index, param_index) are left undocumented, relying only on their self-explanatory 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 clearly states the operation: 'Add an automation point to an FX parameter envelope.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from track-envelope operations like add_envelope_point and from deletion siblings like delete_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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_envelope_point, get_fx_envelope_points, or delete_fx_envelope_point. It implies the FX envelope context through the name but provides no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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