add_shaped_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the curve is baked into the clip and repeats phase-locked to the bar, that it is not a free-running LFO, and even mentions the API cannot set the Map button, requiring a user action. This is rich context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a crucial caveat, a parameter list, and practical usage tips. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or filler—while remaining compact enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, key behavioral nuances, parameter meanings, when to use it, and how to achieve less obvious repetition. No critical context appears missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists and explains all 9 parameters, including the meaning of shape, cycles (can be fractional), min/max range, and points (resolution), providing exactly the semantic information the schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Draw a repeating waveform onto any device parameter as clip automation.' It clearly distinguishes itself from other clip-related tools by emphasizing the repeating waveform and baked-in nature, and the 'NOT a free-running LFO' note further differentiates it from modulation tools.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this when a loop-locked, editable curve is acceptable') and when not to ('This is NOT a free-running LFO'). It also names the alternative (Max for Live LFO) and describes the API limitation, giving the agent actionable decision criteria.

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