postfader_review_attach_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'without changing FL Studio'. It also adds the validation behavior, which is not purely derivable from annotations. It does not describe failure modes or side effects on non-FL Studio state, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

A single, tightly structured sentence that front-loads the verb and key constraints. Every word adds value, and the key non-destructive scope is stated directly.

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 the supporting annotations and a rich schema, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's role in the review workflow. It lacks explicit usage guidance and details about validation criteria, but the schema and sibling context fill most gaps. The core behavior and non-destructive guarantee are clearly communicated.

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 description coverage is 100% at the top level, and the 'request' parameter has a description that clarifies asset categories. The nested object fields have titles and an enum but no descriptive text, and the tool description does not add parameter-level details. Baseline 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the burden.

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 specific action ('Validate and attach') and a specific resource ('explicit audio assets'), and adds a key scope constraint ('without changing FL Studio'). It helps distinguish from sibling tools that render, evaluate, or start reviews, though it does not explicitly name the 'creation review' context that appears in the title annotation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when assets need to be attached to a review, but lacks exclusions, alternative tool names, or workflow placement. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name and siblings.

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