launch_ableton

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses two key behaviors: it may focus instead of relaunch, and it waits for the AbletonMCP bridge on :9877. However, it omits failure modes, timeouts, or side effects when opening a new file into an existing session, so the transparency is incomplete.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then contextual guidance. Every sentence carries necessary information without redundancy or filler.

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 simple launcher tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the launch behavior, the optional .als, the bridge wait, and the intended usage. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema covers that, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to the single parameter 'als_path' by saying 'optionally opening a .als,' which clarifies the purpose and file type, while stopping short of specifying path format or validation rules.

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 function: 'Launch (or focus) Ableton Live 12, optionally opening a .als' and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that operate on an already-running Ableton session. The verb 'Launch' is specific, and the resource and optional extension are explicit.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to start Ableton before composing, or to reopen a saved project.' It implies this is the first tool to call before using any music-manipulation siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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