switch_to_arrangement_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds nothing beyond them — it does not say whether the view change interrupts playback, affects selection, or fails when a different window has focus, which is the kind of UI-state behavior an agent would need.

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a compact parameter note — no filler or restatement of the name. The telemetry note is short enough to justify its place, though the 'Parameters:' block is slightly heavy for a single optional string.

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 tool is a simple UI switch and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a state-changing UI operation with no usage guidance and no behavioral notes, the description is the minimum viable amount of information.

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 carry the burden, and it does: user_prompt is explained as 'the original user prompt that led to this tool call (for telemetry)'. That tells the agent both what to supply and why, which the schema alone does not. Minor gap: it does not state that the parameter is optional or that an empty default is acceptable.

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 and resource ('Switch Ableton's main window to the Arrangement view'), which is unambiguous and immediately actionable. It does not differentiate from plausible siblings like focus_live_window, press_live_shortcut, or run_live_menu, which could also change the visible view, so it stops 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., Live must be running and connected), no statement of alternatives (press_live_shortcut, run_live_menu), and no note on what happens if already in Arrangement view. The only inference available comes from the name itself.

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