bulk_create_cue_points

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses mutation of successful items within a single undo step (transactional scope), aggregated per-item errors that don't abort later items, and off-grid snapping reversal reported as CUE_SNAPPED_TO_GRID. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a bulk mutating call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by clearly labeled 'Side effects' and 'Edge cases' sections and a compact example. Every sentence earns its place, though the labeled list format is slightly more verbose than a tight prose sentence would be.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque parameter, the description covers the critical behavioral unknowns (undo atomicity, error aggregation, snapping). It stops short of the full per-item field set and any return-value shape, but for a bulk mutation tool this is close to complete.

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% and the single 'items' param is an untyped array of objects with additionalProperties, so the schema alone is useless. The inline example [{"name": "A", "time": 0}] meaningfully reveals the item shape, though it doesn't enumerate all possible fields or types, so it compensates substantially but not completely.

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 ('create or rename') and resource ('multiple cue points') plus the batching scope ('as one command'). The word 'multiple'/'bulk' cleanly distinguishes it from the singular create_cue_point sibling without needing schema inspection.

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 batch framing implies when to use it (multiple items at once), and it notes renaming behavior. However, it never explicitly names create_cue_point as the single-item alternative or states the condition that should route an agent to one vs the other, leaving the choice to inference.

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