write_automation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses destructive behavior via clear_first, the verify/read-back comparison mechanism, and the shape of the returned dictionary. This goes well beyond a bare 'write' statement, though it doesn't discuss failure modes or permission requirements.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, and the remaining content is organized into Args, Returns, and Note sections. Every sentence adds practical value, including the workflow note about arrangement, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description documents all parameters, summarizes the return dictionary, and explains the post-write arrangement workflow. There is no meaningful gap that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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 property descriptions cover 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does. The Args block defines track/slot indices, parameter as a LOM path with an example, points format with units, interpolation options, exponent semantics, resolution units/default, and clear_first/verify behavior. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 first sentence says exactly what it does: 'Write an automation envelope curve into a Session clip and verify read-back.' This names a specific verb, resource, and target, and the verify-read-back behavior distinguishes it from writing clip notes or setting a single parameter.

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 description gives clear workflow context: automation envelopes can be written directly to Session clips, and the note advises arranging afterward to transfer automation to the Arrangement timeline. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like set_parameter or read_automation, but the intended use case is clearly implied.

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