ramp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one important trait — the call returns immediately, so the glide continues in the background rather than blocking. It does not say what happens if a second ramp targets the same param, whether a ramp can be cancelled, or what side effects occur on the underlying 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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core verb and effect. The trailing param line is slightly awkwardly formatted but adds real information rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the fire-and-forget behavior is stated. But for a 3-required-param mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition still leaves concurrency/interaction behavior and two parameter meanings unspecified.

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 compensate, and it does clarify the 'param' argument's accepted forms ('energy', 'bpm', 'macro:<name>') plus an example. However, 'to' and 'seconds' are left entirely unexplained beyond their names, so two of three parameters rely on inference.

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 effect ('Glide a numeric value over time') with concrete examples ('a build, a fade'), which tells the agent exactly what this does. It is clearly distinct from siblings like set_scene or send_osc, though it never names or contrasts them 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?

There is no guidance on when to choose ramp over alternatives such as set_scene or send_osc, nor any prerequisites (e.g. whether the param must already exist). The only contextual cue is 'Returns immediately', which hints at the async style but is not usage guidance.

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