Live Controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return structure (per-control target and [bar, value] points) and a scoping constraint (only the last `last` bars). It is silent on authorization, whether it reads or mutates engine state, and what 'this set' refers to. The scoping and shape details are useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 definition is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the core scoping information is front-loaded. The phrasing around 'this set' and 'this engine's bars' is slightly cryptic, but every clause contributes.

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, and the description adds a useful workflow note. However, for a three-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, leaving `control` and `project` semantics unexplained and usage alternatives unnamed is a significant gap. The definition is not sufficient on its own to invoke the tool confidently.

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, yet it only addresses `last` indirectly ('the last `last` of them'). The `control` parameter is never explained – whether it filters to one control or is optional – and `project` is only implied by 'this engine's bars'. Two of three parameters remain undocumented.

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 says it exposes 'control moves of this set as automation' with 'target and [bar, value] points', which points to a read/export of recorded live control data. But it never states a clear verb ('returns', 'lists') or distinguishes itself from siblings like live_control, automation_read, or automation_set. The downstream phrase 'ready to become automation_set points' implies purpose but leaves the core action implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no named alternative among the many automation/live siblings. The only routing signal is indirect: the output is 'ready to become automation_set points in a studio project', which hints at a workflow but not at selection criteria. An agent must infer when this beats automation_read or live_control.

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