Live Start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: plays from bar 1 immediately, silent until clips are queued, keeps playing between calls, clips loop until replaced, tempo locked for the run, output always passes an unraisable limiter/loudness cap, and the reply warns about other live engines on the same device (freeze risk). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the core action before the parenthetical qualifications and constraints. Multi-clause sentences carry real information rather than filler, though the parentheticals could be tightened.

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 engine-start tool, the definition covers lifecycle, audio routing, resource sizing, output constraints, and multi-instance hazards, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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. It explains project (folder + project.json sound bank/voices/'track:<name>' instruments), device ('default', name/index, 'none'), and workers (default cores - 4, range 2-4, more for mimic voices). beats_per_bar and follow_device are left undocumented, and bpm is only implied by the tempo discussion.

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 ('Start the live engine for `project`') and immediately clarifies the scope (any folder, project.json behavior). An agent can distinguish it from live_stop, live_status, and the other live_* siblings without opening a schema.

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 a clear workflow ('Next: live_track, then live_queue') and an explicit condition for the tempo constraint (live_stop, then start again to change it). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it vs alternatives like live_load, but the context is strong.

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