move_device

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, closed world). The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: Live auto-corrects to the nearest valid position, MIDI effects are kept ahead of the instrument, and instruments/MIDI effects cannot be placed on audio tracks. It does not say what the move returns or what happens if the target is invalid.

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 one-line purpose, then breaks the optional parameters into labeled clauses, which is easy to scan. The final constraint sentence crams three separate rules together, adding mild density but no real waste.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema-level parameter docs, the description supplies the placement semantics, defaults, and validity constraints an agent needs to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the identity/format of the required track and device arguments.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and does so for three of five parameters: it defines to_track, to_position (omitted or -1 = end) and to_chain (with concrete chain-path examples). The two required parameters, track and device, are left unexplained, including the fact that they accept either an index or a name, so the coverage is good but incomplete.

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 and resource ("Move a device") plus the three positional scopes it can act on: within its chain, to another track, or into a rack chain. That distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate_device and add_device, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives operational context (defaults, index behavior, where Live will place the device) but never states when to prefer this over duplicate_device, device_action, or delete_device, nor any precondition such as requiring the source device to exist. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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