write_automation

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes further and actually discloses what is destroyed: clear_range 'replaces breakpoints in the range'. It also explains non-obvious behavior - envelopes loop with the clip and travel into the arrangement, and arrangement-clip restrictions. This is substantive context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by structured parameter detail and a concrete example. It is packed into a single semicolon-heavy block, which slightly hurts scanability, but nearly every clause carries unique value.

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 an 11-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanics, units, defaults, and arrrangement restrictions, and gives a worked example. Minor param gaps (arrangement_clip) and only a bare mention of return values keep it from being fully complete.

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?

Against 0% schema coverage across 11 params, the description compensates heavily: it explains parameter values, time formats, the points object, the shape object with its types, units display/raw, clear_range, and device. A few params (arrangement_clip, and slot/track only implicitly) remain unaddressed, so it falls short of full compensation.

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: 'Automate a parameter inside a clip (clip envelope)'. It is immediately distinguishable from get_automation and clear_automation, and names exactly what it produces (envelope from points or shape).

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 implied through the points/shape input modes, and one real constraint is stated ('arrangement clips can only edit envelopes they already carry'). However, no sibling is named as an alternative (get_automation, clear_automation, set_device_parameters), so the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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