live12_view_select

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and doesn't meet it: it says nothing about side effects (e.g. other tools that act on the 'selected' track/device will now target something else), whether Live must be running, or what the response looks like. It also doesn't disclose ordering constraints — device_index is resolved against the selected track, so passing both may be order-dependent, which is left implicit.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the target list after. The parenthetical enumeration mildly duplicates the schema property names, which keeps 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four all-optional combinable parameters, the description should clarify precedence and effect on subsequent 'selected' lookups. It covers the what but leaves those ambiguities unresolved, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 100% and each parameter is individually documented as an optional zero-based index, so the description's parenthetical list adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies; no precedence rule is added for what happens when several optional targets are supplied together.

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 ('Updates GUI selection focus') and enumerates the exact targets (track, scene, clip slot, device), which lets an agent distinguish it from live12_view_switch or live12_lom_set. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 use this versus live12_view_switch, live12_lom_set, or the device/track selection paths. Usage is only implied by the words 'selection focus'; no preconditions, no when-not, no named alternative.

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