Store a group with an explicit selection grid

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the exact console sequence (clears selection, selects fixtures with Grid commands, checks selection, stores, verifies, clears selection, returns cursor) and notes that programmer values are kept, shared cells are refused unless allowed, and missing fixtures are refused. It also states the bridge version requirement and that grid cells are not physical positions.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then presents rules and behavioral details in a logical order. It is dense but every sentence carries useful information given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations. The single-paragraph format is slightly less scannable than ideal, but not excessively verbose.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex 10-parameter tool, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers requirements (exclusive, overwrite, verify), preview behavior, side effects, verification steps, and refusals, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call the tool safely.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains why cells define order (console stores in patch order, MAtricks/phasers/At Thru b distribute along the grid), details the arrangement helper expansion, and clarifies rules for duplicates, shared cells, gaps, preserve_grid_positions behavior, and fixture sub-cells. These semantics go well beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create or overwrite Group <n> from a fixture list with explicit selection-grid cells.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling store tools (e.g., gma3_store_cue, gma3_store_preset), so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides clear conditions for use: preview returns without sending, exclusive is required unless preview, overwrite is needed for existing groups, and locked groups are refused. It also states when to use arrangement helpers versus explicit items. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when not to use this tool versus another sibling.

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