insert_device

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses hard prerequisites (Live 12.1.5+ and Remote Script 1.8.3+), the non-obvious master-track interaction with browser loads, the bypass-the-browser behavior, and that user_prompt is captured for telemetry. It does not describe failure behavior (e.g. unknown device_name, out-of-range target_index) or whether insertion is undoable, which keeps it below the top score for an unannotated 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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the parameter list is justified by the 0% schema coverage, so every line earns its place. The only minor slack is the parenthetical telemetry note, which is short but could have been folded into the parameter line more tightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, prerequisites, all four parameters, and the master-track edge case. What remains missing is error/edge behavior — invalid device name, index past the end of the chain — which matters for an unannotated write operation.

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: all four parameters are explained, including the two sentinel values that the schema cannot convey (-1 track_index = master track, -1 target_index = append at end). It adds real meaning over bare integer/string types, though it does not say how device_name matching behaves (exact string vs. fuzzy) or what happens on an out-of-range index.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: insert a native Live device by name at a position in a track's device chain. It names concrete examples ("Utility", "Saturator", "Limiter", "EQ Eight") and explicitly contrasts the mechanism with the browser-based load path, which lets an agent distinguish it from load_instrument_or_effect without inspecting either schema.

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 clear context for use: native devices only, positioned by chain index, and it flags the master-track case that would otherwise be ambiguous. It never explicitly states the exclusion rule (use the browser path for third-party/VST plugins or when you need to browse), so the agent must infer the alternative rather than being routed to it.

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