ms_macro_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the step structure and action types ('set_default' or 'convert_to_preset'), which tells the agent what mutations will occur. But it does not say whether the sequence is atomic, whether changes are saved automatically, what side effects might occur, or what permissions are required – significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then describes the step format, use cases, and arguments in a compact list. It is appropriately sized and every sentence contributes, though the 'Args' section slightly repeats parameter names without much added explanation.

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 tool's complexity (a macro executor), the poor schema coverage (0%), and the absence of annotations, the description provides essential parameter structure and use cases. However, it omits behavioral caveats such as whether the operation is destructive, whether it saves automatically, or error handling, leaving the agent without full context for safe invocation. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that 'name' is a descriptive name and 'steps_json' is a JSON array of step dicts, including the required 'action' field and action-specific fields like node_id/input/value or referenced_asset. This is substantial semantic detail beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a named sequence of parameter changes and/or preset swaps.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ms_set_default, ms_convert_to_preset, or ms_preset_swap, so the agent must infer that this tool is for multi-step macros.

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?

It gives use cases ('cinematic audio cues, dynamic music transitions, and scripted sound design sequences'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for single parameter changes or preset swaps, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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