Store a cue

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it names the exact command form (/NoConfirmation, /Merge, /Overwrite), the follow-up Set() calls on part 0, and the point-in-time nature of the create existence check (not a transaction lock). It explicitly discloses limits -- the mutation lock does not isolate from another console operator, and fixture values are not verified -- which is exactly the kind of behavioral caveat an agent needs before calling a mutation.

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 action and modes, then progressively details command mechanics, caveats, and verification scope. Every sentence carries information, though the middle section is a dense run-on cramming five property names into one sentence, which costs some readability.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers command mechanics, mode semantics, side effects, and the split between store step and read-back. It stops short of describing failure behavior for merge/overwrite when the target cue does not exist, and gives only a high-level notion of what the response contains.

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; the description earns more by tying the fade/delay/out_fade/out_delay parameters to their concrete console properties (CueInFade, CueInDelay, CueOutFade, CueOutDelay) applied via Set() on part 0, and by clarifying that name is applied after the store rather than during it. It adds the verification-separate-from-mutation framing that the schema's 'verify' description only hints at.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource -- 'Store the programmer content as a cue of a sequence' -- and enumerates the three modes. It therefore separates itself from read-oriented siblings like gma3_cue_contents, but it never mentions gma3_store_cues or gma3_store_cue_part, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this single-cue tool over the plural one.

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 conditions are stated clearly: create refuses when the cue exists, merge/overwrite apply to an existing cue, and stored attribute data needs gma3_cue_contents instead. It also explains the side-effect boundaries (fixture selection unchanged, programmer not cleared). It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and its near-duplicate siblings gma3_store_cues or gma3_store_cue_part, which is the main missing piece.

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