Live Fx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses glide-over-ramp behavior, log-space frequency interpolation, that non-automatable params rebuild the chain at `at` with the old tail ringing out, and exactly what clear=True cancels. It doesn't cover failure modes or preconditions (e.g., whether live must be running).

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?

Front-loads the core action and target/index/model semantics, then layers scheduling and clear semantics. It is dense, near a wall of text, but essentially every sentence earns its place. Minor tightening possible in the scheduling paragraph.

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 complex 8-param, nested-object live performance tool with no annotations, it covers routing, timing, glide behavior, scheduling interactions, and cancellation. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Only edge behavior (errors, live-running preconditions) is left implicit.

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?

At 0% schema coverage with 8 params, the description compensates almost fully: target ('track' or 'bus:<name>'), index (0-based or type like 'filter:2' that survives edits), at ('now' or a live_queue value), ramp_beats, clear, params (automatable names via fx_help), and the moves dict shape. This is meaning the schema does not carry.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change params of one effect in a live chain') and the target/index semantics make clear it operates on live chains rather than the studio fx_set. It references live_status/live_track/fx_help for supporting concepts. It never explicitly contrasts itself with fx_set or automation_set, so the boundary with siblings is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios ('one call = a filter sweep over 8 bars, a fade, a build') and a specific procedural rule for using clear=True before a section reuses a track. It also names related tools (live_track, live_queue, live_status, fx_help) as prerequisites. No explicit when-NOT-to-use or a direct alternative to pick instead.

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