create_arrangement_cue_point

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the two-phase intent ('Plan or create') and the beat-position requirement, but it does not disclose that planning is a dry run or that execution requires a valid confirmationToken and expectedStateVersion.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and positional constraint without wasting words.

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?

The tool's two-step planning/creation workflow is not explicitly described; the agent must infer it from the schema's field descriptions (dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken). There is no output schema, so return values are not described, but the parameter descriptions partially compensate for this gap.

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 fully documents all six parameters. The description adds 'exact beat position' which reinforces timeBeats, but it adds no further meaning beyond the schema's already detailed 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 ('Plan or create') and resource ('Arrangement cue point') with a positional constraint ('exact beat position'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_arrangement_cue_points, rename_arrangement_cue_point, delete_arrangement_cue_point, and jump_to_arrangement_cue_point.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it explain when to plan versus create. The plan/execute flow is implied only by the name and schema, not clarified in the description.

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