get_fx_envelope

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

Goes beyond the minimal destructiveHint=false annotation by explicitly disclosing the side effect that the envelope is created when missing and by naming the return fields. No hidden mutation is implied beyond creation.

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?

Compact, front-loaded purpose with a clear Args/Returns structure. The example and side-effect statement each earn their place; 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?

No output schema and only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It covers side effects and return shape, but leaves two of three required parameters undocumented and does not clarify 0-based indexing for track_index and fx_index.

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?

Only param_index is documented (with 0-based indexing and how to discover valid values via track_fx_get_num_params). track_index and fx_index remain undocumented at 0% schema coverage; their meanings are inferable from names but the description does not state that they are also indices or what indexing convention they follow.

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 action (get or create) on a specific resource (automation envelope for an FX parameter), with an illustrative example. This clearly differentiates it from track-envelope utilities like get_track_envelope and point-level tools like get_fx_envelope_points.

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?

Explains the intended use: automating any FX parameter, and clarifies side-effect behavior (created if absent). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions, but the FX-scoped context is sufficient to guide selection among envelope-related siblings.

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