live_record_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that record modes cannot be read back and are reported as set rather than confirmed, that setting punchFrom/punchTo repurposes the loop range without enabling looping, and that punch-out is not independently readable once punch-in is on. It does not cover permission or state-reset behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the no-argument read behavior, then set behavior, then caveats; every sentence is informational. The paragraph is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is 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?

For a 13-parameter, output-schema-less, annotation-less mutation tool, the description covers inputs and even sketches the result payload ('shows punch-in and whether any autopunch is on'). Only error/failure behavior is left unspecified.

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 only 23% across 13 params, yet the description accounts for nearly every one and adds meaning the schema lacks: punchFrom/punchTo as seconds-or-bars positions, precountBars as a bar count, and the grouping of replace/loopTakes/loopMix/takesToLayers/inputQuantize/noteErase as record modes. It explains the semantics of the punch range rather than restating 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?

States a specific verb+resource: reads and sets recording/metronome and auto-punch configuration in the running Studio One. Scope is clear enough to separate it from live_record (capturing takes) or live_set_loop, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'with no arguments, reads the metronome' clause tells the agent exactly how to use it as a getter versus a setter, which is the main branching decision. It gives no explicit exclusions or pointers to overlapping siblings such as live_set_loop, which handles the loop locators this tool touches.

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