ramp_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'smoothly ramp' but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it is blocking, modifies automation, or handles out-of-range indices. Some transparency is present (time-based via beats/bpm) but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with purpose and efficiently covers use cases. The parameter list is clear, though the 'Parameters:' line is slightly redundant. Overall minimal waste.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description covers purpose and parameter details well. It does not explain the return value (output schema exists) or edge cases, but these are less critical. The description is largely complete for a straightforward ramp tool.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter's meaning (track_index 0-based, send_index mapping to Send A/B, value ranges 0.0-1.0, defaults for bpm and steps_per_beat) that are not in the schema titles.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Smoothly ramp a track's send level over a specified number of beats' and provides use cases ('Used for reverb/delay build-ups and decay'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ramp_volume and ramp_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 implies usage context ('reverb/delay build-ups and decay') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like ramp_volume or ramp_parameter, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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