automation_write

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

The description adds important behavior beyond annotations: the lane is created automatically if needed, existing automation is replaced, the result plays with the arrangement, and the operation is undoable. These details are consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false because replacement is idempotent and undoable.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a useful concrete example and two short behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary length.

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 full schema coverage, annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It covers purpose, replacement behavior, playback timing, and undoability.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents track, param, points, and curve. The description reinforces beat/value semantics and provides a concrete example, but it does not add new meaning for curve or the track id-vs-index distinction beyond what the schema provides.

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: automate a track's volume, pan, or any parameter over the song. It also distinguishes the write behavior by stating that the lane is created if needed and existing automation is replaced, separating it from automation_list and automation_clear.

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 provides clear context for use: writing breakpoints at song beats over the arrangement, with an example of a filter sweep. It does not explicitly name alternatives like automation_list or automation_clear, or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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