Insert, change, move or remove one macro line (never runs it)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the refusal condition (locked or running macro), the reference-validation behavior and its raw:true escape hatch, the read-back verification of order and content, and the non-obvious 'move is sent as upward moves only because a downward Move lands one place short' quirk. These are exactly the side-effect and failure-mode details an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

The text is front-loaded with the action list and then layers constraints, verification, and the sibling cross-reference with essentially no filler. The telegraphic fragments ('set (any of command, wait, ...)') and the pointer to 'accept_console_form as in gma3_store_macro' force the reader to consult another tool, which slightly hurts standalone readability.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers action semantics, preconditions, verification, and edge cases well enough to call it correctly. It stops short of explaining the verify/preview switches and what the read-back verification returns to the caller, which are the remaining gaps.

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 only 6% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps command/wait/enabled/add_to_cmdline/execute/name/note to the set action, defines line bounds for insert, and explains to for move plus raw and accept_console_form. It leaves verify, preview, and the macro parameter itself unexplained, so a few parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 the exact resource (one macro line) and enumerates the four operations (insert, set, move, remove), so the agent knows precisely what the tool mutates. It also explicitly separates itself from gma3_run_macro and gma3_store_macro ('Never runs the macro', 'accept_console_form as in gma3_store_macro'), so it is distinguishable from siblings without opening a 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?

Usage is spelled out per action: insert requires a command and a line in 1..count+1, set takes a listed field set, move takes line -> to, remove deletes. It also gives the precondition that a locked or running macro is refused, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over gma3_store_macro for whole-macro edits, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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