automation_record_value

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

Annotations already carry the important safety signals: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a relevant precondition and one-shot scope with 'while playback and recording are active' and 'one'. However, it does not explain what is mutated, whether existing automation is overwritten, or what the expected_before parameter is protecting against. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 description is one compact sentence with an active verb, no filler, and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity leaves important operational detail to the schema and annotations.

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?

With six parameters, a destructive side-effect, and a concurrency-related field like expected_before, a single sentence is not enough context for an agent to invoke this reliably. The description does not mention critical invocation semantics such as mixer target 0 protection, the normalized value range, or what happens if playback/recording is not active. The output schema may help with return shape, but not with these invocation concerns.

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?

The schema covers only about 50% of the parameters with descriptions, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain target_index, expected_before, value_normalized, or the safety role of allow_master. Given the incomplete schema coverage, the tool description needed to compensate but does not.

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 description states a concrete action — 'Dispatch one REC_MIDIController value' — and the context in which it operates ('while playback and recording are active'). The tool name and annotation title reinforce that this is an automation-recording operation. It loses the top score because 'REC_MIDIController' is unexplained jargon and the description does not explicitly say that this records automation as opposed to merely sending a MIDI event.

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 phrase 'while playback and recording are active' gives an implicit usage precondition, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over sibling parameter tools like fl_set_mixer_volume, fl_set_mixer_pan, or fl_set_channel_mix. It does not provide exclusions, alternatives, or failure conditions, so an agent gets only a loose sense of when this is the right call.

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