write_automation

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the envelope is created/shown and that the change is a single undo step, which is real behavioral context. But it omits the fact that replace defaults to true and will overwrite existing points in the written range, and says nothing about permissions or how conflicting target/points interact.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the input modes, then behavioral notes. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and invocation modes but under-serves behavioral risk (the destructive default of replace) and the target/value-unit coupling. Adequate given the high schema coverage, but not complete for a write tool with zero annotation safety net.

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 89%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuinely useful semantic the schema does not make obvious: points, ramp, and lfo can be combined rather than being mutually exclusive. This supplements the structured field docs rather than repeating them.

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 ('Writes automation') and grounds it with concrete examples (volume rides, pans, filter sweeps, wobbles). However, it never differentiates itself from the obvious siblings read_automation and clear_automation, so an agent gets the 'what' but not explicit separation from the read/delete counterparts.

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?

The sentence 'Give points, a ramp or an lfo (they can be combined)' signals how to invoke the tool but not when to prefer it over alternatives. There is no stated condition, exclusion, or named alternative (e.g. clear_automation for removal), leaving usage to inference.

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