Live Deck

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 that remove=True deletes the deck and its tracks (destructive), that cue=True pulls the deck off air while live_listen still hears it, and gives concrete value thresholds (-60 or less = off, -40 or less kills the band). Gaps remain on auth/permission requirements and reversibility, but overall it is rich for a mutation 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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core resource definition, and every sentence adds parameter or behavioral information with no filler. The density is appropriate for a 12-parameter tool, though the lack of any grouping makes it slightly harder to scan.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics and behavioral consequences well, and an output schema exists so return values need not be restated. The main omissions are explicit usage routing and permission/authorization context.

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, and it does for most of the 12 parameters: volume_db, the three isolator bands with their split frequencies and kill thresholds, filter range, ramp_beats/at glide, transpose, cue and remove all get semantic meaning. The identifiers project and deck are only loosely addressed, keeping it just short of full coverage.

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 names the resource concretely ('A deck's channel strip', with 'deck = a group of tracks') and enumerates the controllable elements (volume, 3-band isolator, filter, transpose, cue, remove). It is specific but leaves the verb implicit and does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like live_bus or live_fx.

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 conveyed indirectly through behavioral detail: cue=True is framed as 'prepare the next part' off-air, and glide behavior is likened to live_fx. However, there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' routing or named alternative to select against.

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