live_run_macro

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does the important part: it discloses that the tool mutates the song, acts on selection state, and that most (not all) edits are reversible via live_undo. It does not describe what happens when the title does not match a known macro or what the call returns, which leaves a behavioral gap for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource before the caveats. Every clause earns its place: the example disambiguates title format, the selection note prevents a common misuse, and the undo note bounds risk.

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 two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs: how to name the macro, what it acts on, that it edits the song, and how to undo. The main remaining gap is error/not-found behavior and the shape of the result, which the description only partially implies through check_only.

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, and it does for both parameters: title is sourced from live_macros and shown in concrete format via an example, and check_only is explained as a report-enabled-without-running flag. Matching behavior (exact vs. fuzzy title resolution) is left unspecified.

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 ("Run a Studio One macro by title") and anchors the title to its source tool, live_macros, which cleanly separates it from sibling live_macros (enumeration) and live_command (single command). The concrete example macro name makes the resource unambiguous.

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?

Gives real preconditions — macros usually act on the current selection, with explicit pointers to live_select_events / live_select_track — plus a check_only mode for a no-op availability check and live_undo for reversal. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over live_command for a single command, so no explicit exclusion is offered.

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