Automation Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses interpolation behavior (linear between points, log for Hz params, held before/after) and explains that mode='merge' preserves existing points outside the new span, implying the default 'replace' overwrites. It omits auth/permission needs and does not explicitly state what replace destroys, but the curve semantics are unusually well covered.

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 main purpose is front-loaded before the dense parenthetical examples, and given the genuine complexity the length is justified. However, the single run-on paragraph with stacked parentheticals is harder to scan than a structured breakdown would be.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a 5-parameter, 0%-coverage mutation tool the description supplies nearly everything an agent needs (points format, interpolation, param syntax, mode), with the only real gap being explicit precedence/overwrite behavior in replace mode.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines track formats ('master', 'bus:<name>'), points structure ([[bar, value], ...] with fractional bars), mode semantics, and the full range of param values including dB-offset behavior and inst/fx paths. Only 'project' is left undocumented, which is self-evident.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Automate a parameter over time', and immediately clarifies the scope (master, bus, or inst automation). An agent can tell it writes/creates automation curves rather than reading or clearing them, though it never names the sibling tools automation_read/automation_clear explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the detailed how-to content (track formats, param syntax, mode semantics), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion conditions, and no routing to alternatives such as automation_clear or automation_read. The agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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