Create macro control

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

The annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it creates expression-bound targets that track the macro live, and it clarifies the remapping and curve mechanics. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the underlying mechanism and side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Add one macro knob'), then elaborates on the mechanism and use case. Every clause contributes useful information, with no wasted words.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the behavior, and the use case. The only minor omission is explicit prerequisites (e.g., that the target COMP must exist), but the comp_path default and schema make this relatively clear. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 descriptions already cover all parameters (100% coverage), including min, max, curve, and comp_path. The description's mention of '[min,max] range' and 'optional response curve' merely echoes the schema fields without adding a new semantic layer. Therefore, the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Add') and identifies the resource ('one macro knob to a COMP') and its distinctive behavior ('drives many parameters at once, each remapped into its own [min,max] range with an optional response curve'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_control_panel or add_custom_parameters by emphasizing the one-to-many mapping.

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 provides clear context: it is for sweeping a whole look from a single fader via one-to-many control. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intended use case is unambiguous and sufficient for an agent to decide when to select it.

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