ableton_load_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention consequences of invalid trackIndex, behavior on duplicate queries, default kind behavior, or interaction with existing devices (e.g., whether devices are replaced or appended). The description omits any safety or side-effect details.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every word adds value by enumerating the types of devices that can be loaded.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values (e.g., success/failure, loaded device info), error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., track must exist). The tool is a mutation operation, but behavioral and completeness gaps remain.

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 25% (only `query` has a description). The tool description adds minimal parameter context: it lists device types (instrument, effect, etc.) but does not explain `trackIndex`, `position` (e.g., what 'prepend' or 'replace_instrument' mean), or the default value for `kind`. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Load' and the resource 'Live device, preset, plugin, VST, AU, or rack onto a track'. It succinctly captures the tool's primary action and differentiates it from siblings like `ableton_load_master_device` (loads onto master) and `ableton_select_vst_for_midi` (selects VST for MIDI).

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `ableton_load_master_device`, `ableton_set_device_parameter`, or `ableton_modify_track`. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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