Execute a grandMA3 command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does much of it: no pre-check and no read-back, return of command-line feedback (OK, Syntax Error, Illegal Command), output-producing commands going to console history instead, $variable expansion only outside quotes with shadowing and silent no-op on a missing variable, and fire-and-forget OSC with no feedback. The remaining gap is that it never states permission/authorization needs or that commands mutate live show state irreversibly (e.g. ClearAll, Store).

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 FALLBACK framing, then examples, then return format, then caveats — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long for a two-parameter tool, and the parenthetical SU-15 probe anecdote is more detail than an agent needs to invoke it.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains exactly what is returned (command-line feedback) and what is not (List/GetGlobalVariable output), covers both transports, and handles the variable-expansion edge cases. For a raw command passthrough with no annotations, nothing essential to a correct call 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the command string is typed exactly as on the console without Please/Enter, with four worked examples, and $variables expand outside quotes. The enum for 'via' is already documented in the schema, and the description's OSC note adds the fire-and-forget consequence rather than duplicating it.

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 ('Execute a grandMA3 command-line command exactly as it would be typed (without Please/Enter)') and immediately frames the tool as a FALLBACK relative to the structured tools that cover patching, looks, presets, groups, phasers, cues, chases and playback. An agent can tell precisely what this does and how it differs from every sibling category.

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?

Explicit routing rules: use this only when no structured tool covers the action, because structured tools check before acting and read back while a raw command does not. It also names concrete redirections for adjacent needs (gma3_get_object / gma3_list_children for reading data, gma3_variables / gma3_set_variable for variables) and warns that List/GetGlobalVariable output does not come back here.

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