Live Map

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire burden and does so substantially: controls send 0..1, range defines the value at 0 and at 1, curve semantics are spelled out including the 'switch' threshold and 'raw' unit passthrough, and every move is logged by bar. It omits permissions/authorization, error behavior, and what happens if an already-mapped control is remapped.

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-loaded with the core action and then organized parameter-by-parameter, with no filler sentences. It is dense to the point of terseness in places (e.g. 'at: when a move lands for effect and deck params'), but the compression is appropriate for an eight-parameter domain tool.

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 tool this complex, the description covers the mapping model, value scaling, curve types, timing, logging, and unmapping, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Remaining gaps are the undocumented 'project' parameter and any statement of failure modes or remap-overwrite behavior.

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 define all eight parameters, and it effectively does: target formats ('bus:<name>', 'deck:<name>'), an enumerated param list with concrete examples like 'fx:filter.cutoff', range as [value at 0, value at 1], four named curves with their behavior, at ('now'/'next_bar'), and remove. Only 'project' is left undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: mapping a named physical control (knob/slider/switch) to a live parameter so its moves apply directly in the engine. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling live_controls, which the description itself identifies as the read-back side of the same automation.

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?

Explains the operative condition well: 'moves apply in the engine at once with no agent in the loop', which tells the agent this is for direct hardware control rather than agent-driven parameter changes. It also names the complementary tool (live_controls reads the logged automation) and notes remove=True unmaps. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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