create_locator

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

With annotations already declaring the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the transport must be stopped, Live snaps to the 1/16 grid, placement is bounded by song length, and locators are indexed in time order. It stops short of stating error behavior or the return value.

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-loads the action and target, then layers prerequisite, snapping behavior, and an example without padding. Slightly dense, but every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: prerequisite state, grid snapping, song-length bound, and indexing. It omits what the call returns (e.g., a locator id) and failure modes, which are minor gaps here.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains `time` accepts beats or a 'bar.beat.sixteenth' string and that `name` is optional. The example (create_locator("17.1.1", "Chorus")) concretely demonstrates both parameters, though it doesn't spell out the plain-beats numeric format precisely.

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 ('Add') and resource ('arrangement locator (cue point)'), and the parenthetical clarifies the term. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_locator and delete_locator 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?

It states a concrete prerequisite ('The transport must be stopped') which shapes when the tool can be called, but never contrasts itself with the sibling set_locator/delete_locator or says when to prefer each. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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