Run SoundCraft engine commands

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: sequential execution, live=true driving the open app vs a headless engine, and the guarantee that open_path is never saved over. It still does not explain overwrite or stop_on_error semantics, but the additions are substantive.

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?

A single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the 'Advanced: run any ... in order' framing and nearly every clause carries non-obvious information. The malformed quoting around the bars_beats example and the run-on length keep it from a 5.

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 12-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema tool the description covers the hard parts (ordering, step references, positions, live mode, open_path safety) but omits error handling and overwrite behavior and leaves a third of the parameters unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does for live, steps, and output writing by documenting the '$steps[N].field' chaining syntax and the position formats (samples, {"seconds": x}, bars_beats) that appear nowhere in the schema. Several parameters (bit_depth, normalize, overwrite, stop_on_error, sample_rate) remain undocumented in both places.

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 (run SoundCraft engine commands in order) and enumerates the command namespaces and engine-tool step ids, so the agent knows exactly what it executes. It does not, however, contrast itself against siblings like edit_session or process_audio, which overlap with the step ids it lists.

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?

The 'Advanced:' prefix implies this is the heavyweight option and listing engine tools as steps hints at the relationship to siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not or routing statement (e.g. 'prefer create_session for a simple new session'). Usage is only implied.

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