Manage cue

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

Despite a rich behavioral disclosure of morph timing, easing, Execute DAT, and quantize scheduling, the description directly contradicts the annotations: it explicitly lists 'delete' as an action and mentions deleting cues, while destructiveHint is false. This is a clear annotation contradiction and warrants the lowest score per the rubric.

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 several sentences long, but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the purpose and action set, then explains the differentiating morph behavior, quantize options, and workflow in a compact, logical flow. There is no filler or redundancy; it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with five parameters, multiple action modes, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the system's purpose, the exact actions, prerequisites (create_control_panel), the morph mechanism including tempo-synced quantize, and differentiators from siblings. The absence of list return details is acceptable given no output schema, and the description fills the context needed for an agent to select and invoke this tool effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'eased' crossfading and references Execute DAT, but the schema already details all parameters including action enum, duration default, quantize semantics, and comp_path. The description does not significantly improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema 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 clearly states the tool's role as a live-performance scene system with a specific verb+resource: store/recall/morph/list/delete named cues (snapshots of a COMP's custom-parameter values). It distinguishes itself from the sibling manage_presets by explicitly naming the differing morph capability, making the purpose obvious and well-scoped.

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 explicitly contrasts with manage_presets, explaining that cues support timed morphing for stage use and suggesting when this tool is preferable. It also gives workflow guidance: 'Build cues with create_control_panel, then jump or morph between them.' The quantize parameter's musical timing use case is clearly described, providing strong contextual usage guidance.

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