live_takes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that add/duplicate are undoable ("each one live_undo"), that retrospective recall is limited to instrument tracks, and that takes do not wrap at the ends. It still omits whether unpack is destructive or how it interacts with existing tracks, and says nothing about failure modes for an invalid take number.

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?

Everything is packed into one dense, front-loaded sentence that starts with the resource and then walks the action space, with no filler. The heavy parenthetical nesting makes it harder to scan than a short bulleted action list would be, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description states what is returned (the number of takes and the names of clips now playing), which is what an agent needs to chain calls. Combined with the non-wrapping edge case and undo semantics, it is nearly complete; only per-action failure behavior and track-selection prerequisites are missing.

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 33%, but the description compensates by explaining the take parameter as 1-based and only relevant for goto, tying it to the action enum, and by defining each of the eight action values in prose (including duplicate vs add). The track parameter itself gets no explanation beyond being implied by "A track's takes", which is a minor gap.

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 names a specific resource ("A track's takes (layers) in the running Studio One") and enumerates the operations it supports (list, next/previous/goto, add, duplicate, unpack, retrospective), so the agent knows exactly what domain this tool covers. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool it supersedes or differs from (e.g. live_tracks, live_track_state), which keeps it 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?

Usage is implied through the action list: goto needs a 1-based take number, add/duplicate each registers a live_undo, unpack splits takes into separate tracks, and retrospective applies to instrument tracks. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over neighbours like live_track_state or live_add_track, and no prerequisites (e.g. Studio One must be running, track must be selected) are stated.

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