Edit a SoundCraft session

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description corroborates the key safety claim with a strong, explicit statement: "The original session is never changed." It also discloses that outputs are written (mixdown, stems, MIDI, new session copy), which is useful context beyond the flags. It omits the preview default-of-true and the confirmation/overwrite behavior, so it is helpful but not exhaustive.

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-loaded with the core action and followed by a one-sentence guarantee about the original session. The long middle sentence is dense but each clause maps to real capability, so little is wasted; it is only slightly list-heavy for a description.

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 20-parameter, deeply nested mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential mental model: what gets modified, what gets produced, and that the input is preserved. Remaining details (preview, output_dir being required for new files, overwrite semantics) live in the well-covered schema, so nothing critical is 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?

Schema description coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the default output formats and the name-based track addressing. The description's contribution is an inventory of the changeable categories (tempo, meter, key, markers, busses, tracks, outputs) rather than syntax or format detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (open/change/edit) and resource (a .scraft SoundCraft session) and then enumerates the full edit surface: tempo, meter, key, markers, busses, add/change/remove tracks, and output writing. This makes it unmistakably distinct from create_session (new session) and export_session (write-only) without needing to name them.

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 clear usage context – it applies to an existing session or to starting a project from audio files – and implies the edit-then-render workflow. It never states when to prefer a sibling such as export_session or process_audio, nor any exclusions, so it lands at clear-context-without-alternatives rather than full routing guidance.

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