Execute a grandMA3 command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the return values (OK, Syntax Error, Illegal Command), the fact that output-producing commands write to console history instead, and that OSC transport yields no feedback. It also explains the retry semantics of the 'auto' transport (no resend after bridge acceptance).

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 purpose, then examples, return values, and caveats in a logical order; each sentence carries information. It is dense but not padded, though it could be slightly tighter in the transport sentences.

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 command-execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: invocation format, return signals, output-routing caveats, transport behavior, and the correct alternatives for reading data. Nothing material is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the detailed 'via' enum and its fallback behavior. The description earns credit above baseline by supplying concrete command-syntax examples ('Fixture 1 Thru 10 At 50', 'Store Cue 2 /Merge /NoConfirmation') that clarify the expected format of the 'command' string beyond the schema's single example.

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 ('Execute a grandMA3 command-line command exactly as it would be typed') and immediately distinguishes its scope from siblings by noting that output commands like List print to console history rather than here, routing the agent to gma3_get_object / gma3_list_children. An agent can tell it apart from the ~60 sibling tools 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?

Explicit when-to-use (raw command-line syntax) and when-not (data reads should use gma3_get_object / gma3_list_children), plus a clear transport caveat that 'osc' is fire-and-forget with no feedback. Alternatives and selection conditions are named, not implied.

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