automate_mixer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the parameter format and gives an example, but it does not specify whether the automation overwrites existing points, whether it creates a new envelope, or any side effects like destructive behavior. This is a significant gap.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by parameter formats and a clear example. No redundant information; every part serves a purpose.

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 complexity (4 required parameters, including nested points array), the description lacks details on track_index and slot_index (e.g., index range, zero-based?). It does not cover the output schema or error conditions. The example helps but neglects key parameters.

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 description adds meaning for 'param' and 'points' beyond the schema (e.g., param values, point structure). However, it completely omits explanation for 'track_index' and 'slot_index', which are required parameters with no schema descriptions. Coverage is only 50%.

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?

Description clearly states it automates a mixer parameter (volume, pan, send) in a clip, using a specific format. It distinguishes from sibling automation tools by specifying 'mixer' and 'in a clip', setting it apart from general automation tools like create_automation or add_automation_points.

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 includes an example and explains param and points, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_automation_points or clear_automation_envelope, nor does it mention prerequisites 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.