create_cue_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses that the Set is mutated in one undo step, that the playhead moves temporarily, and names two specific failure modes (PLAYHEAD_NOT_MOVED, CUE_SNAPPED_TO_GRID). It stops short of a 5 because it does not describe the return value or what happens if the name collides at a different time.

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 purpose, then uses labeled lines ('Side effects:', 'Example:', 'Edge cases:') that make it scannable. Every sentence carries content; the only cost is that the error-code details are dense for the space they occupy.

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, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers side effects, an example, and error conditions well. It leaves out the return value and how it relates to the sibling cue-point tools, keeping it from a 5.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. The example create_cue_point("Verse", 8.0) and the phrase 'at a beat time' imply that 'name' is a text label and 'time' is a numeric beat position, which adds real meaning, but neither parameter is explicitly defined.

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 ('Create or idempotently rename a cue point at a beat time'), and the example clarifies the operation. It does not name any sibling (bulk_create_cue_points, delete_cue_point, get_locators) to differentiate itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The 'idempotently rename' phrasing implies it is safe to call repeatedly at an existing beat, which is a mild usage signal, but alternatives like bulk_create_cue_points or delete_cue_point are never referenced.

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