Create transient/sustain reactive

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and non-destructive. The description adds useful output location details and mentions the custom parameter page on the parent COMP, but does not disclose all side effects like creating a container COMP or wiring an internal audio device when audioSource is empty.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: definition, companion usage, and parameter tweaking location. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (8 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, output location, channel names, and a usage suggestion. It does not detail every parameter interaction, but the schema handles those. Reasonably complete for a mid-complexity creation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. It mentions 'Sensitivity + per-envelope attack/release' as a high-level grouping, but this adds no new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Layer-1 audio splitter: differences a fast and a slow envelope follower to expose two normalized 0..1 channels — transient and sustain — on a Null CHOP at {comp}/out.' This specifies a unique action and output, distinguishing it from generic audio envelope tools.

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 provides a specific usage context: 'Pair with bind_to_channel to drive visuals from percussion vs sustain independently.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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