automation_record_plugin_param

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior, but it only says 'Record automation.' It does not state whether existing automation is overwritten or appended, whether the plugin must be instantiated, how the recording is anchored, or what happens on failure. For a mutating operation this is a significant gap.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first and the `points` format following immediately. It contains no fluff, though the extreme brevity leaves out critical parameter context that could have been included without much length.

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 five parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It offers only the `points` shape; an agent cannot determine how to specify the plugin channel/parameter/slot/location or what success/failure looks like.

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 for undocumented parameters. It adds useful meaning only for `points`, showing `[{time_bars, value}]`, but leaves `channel`, `param`, `slot`, and `location` completely unexplained, including which are required and how they identify the target plugin.

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 states a specific action ('Record automation') and a specific resource ('a plugin parameter'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like automation_record_channel_volume and automation_record_tempo. No ambiguity remains about what this tool operates on.

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 phrase 'on a plugin parameter' implies this tool is for plugin-parameter automation rather than channel, mixer, or tempo automation. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over its automation_record_* siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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