live_write_automation

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it explains why the operation is real-time (no API for envelope points), that the write is audible, that it overwrites existing automation in the range, that the channel is toggled to Write and left in Read, and that it is destructive to that parameter's curve. That is exactly the side-effect and reversibility information an agent needs before calling a mutation.

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?

Densely front-loaded with the core action and payload formats first, then the behavioral explanation, then the alternative. Sentences are long and clause-heavy but each one carries distinct information; nothing 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 4-parameter, high-risk, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mechanism, side effects, preconditions and alternatives. It stops short of saying whether the write is undoable or what state remains if it is interrupted mid-range.

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 25%, but the description compensates by documenting the mutually exclusive point payloads ({at, db} in dB, {at, pan} -1..1, {at, value} 0..1) and by reinforcing the confirm constraint. 'channel' and the volume/pan meaning of 'parameter' are left to the schema, which is the only real 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write volume or pan automation on a channel'), names the parameter domain, and defines the point shapes inline. An agent can tell this apart from live_set_automation or live_events without opening any schema.

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 a hard precondition ('Only runs with confirm: true') and routes a specific sub-case elsewhere ('For fades inside one clip, prefer live_events fade_in/fade_out'). It does not explicitly contrast with the adjacent live_set_automation sibling, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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