Randomize controls

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

The description discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it specifies that non-numeric controls are left untouched, explains the blending behavior of the 'amount' parameter, and explicitly states safety ('always safe to fire'). The annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds valuable detail about what exactly changes and what does not.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: main action, parameter behavior, safety, and a workflow tip. There is no fluff, and the structure flows logically from what it does to how to use it.

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?

The description is complete enough for a tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema. It covers the effect on numeric vs non-numeric parameters, the blending behavior, and a use case. It does not explicitly mention whether it works on the current selection or only the specified comp_path, but the schema's comp_path parameter covers this. Minor gap: no mention of return value, but that is not necessary without an output schema.

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% and the schema already describes parameters well. The description adds a higher-level interpretation, such as 'amount blends toward random (1 = fully random, low values nudge the current look)' and clarifies that only numeric custom parameters are affected, reinforcing the meaning of the 'params' array. This adds value beyond the schema without redundancy.

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 action: 'Randomize a COMP's numeric custom parameters within their slider ranges' with a specific resource and scope. It also adds the use case 'instant new variation for live improvisation,' making it unmistakable what the tool does and distinguishing it from any other tool.

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 gives clear context for use ('live improvisation') and explicitly says it is 'always safe to fire' with no prerequisites. It suggests pairing with manage_presets/manage_cue to snapshot results, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative tool. This is clear guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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