live12_view_switch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool changes the primary active view and references show_view/focus_view, but it does not state whether the change is reversible, whether it affects focus/selection state, or what happens to other open views.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the operation.

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 one-parameter view-switch tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: the schema handles the parameter and the description states the operation. However, it omits sibling differentiation from live12_view_select and does not explain side effects or when this tool should be chosen.

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%, including an enum of canonical view names, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline 3.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it switches the primary active view in the Ableton Live 12 GUI. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling live12_view_select, leaving potential ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by 'switches the primary active view,' but the description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as live12_view_select or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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