create_clip_automation_curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive side effect ('replaces one clip envelope in one Live undo step'), the server-side expansion into contiguous steps, and a hard 500-step cap with resolution as the remedy. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or exactly which envelope is overwritten when device_index is null.

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-loads the core action, then organizes the rest under Side effects / Example / Edge cases. Dense with useful detail and little waste; only mildly longer than strictly necessary.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers side effects, undo semantics, an invocation example, and a real failure mode with its mitigation. The main gap is the unexplained device_index parameter and no statement of return behavior.

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% across 7 params, so the description must compensate. It clarifies control_points format (time/value objects), shape usage (shape="exp"), and resolution's role in avoiding overflow — solid for those — but never explains device_index, track_index, clip_index, or parameter_name, and lists no valid shape values.

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: 'Write a smooth envelope from a handful of control points.' An agent can tell it writes clip automation, but the description never distinguishes it from the sibling create_clip_automation or get_clip_automation, leaving the reader to infer the difference from name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as create_clip_automation or set_parameter_value. The example shows a valid call but does not say under what circumstances this tool should be preferred over its siblings.

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