new_live_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the Accessibility requirement and that the control surface bridge survives due to a global preference. However, it does not explicitly warn that the current Live Set may be discarded or that a save prompt might appear, leaving a potentially destructive side effect implicit.

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 that front-load the primary purpose and then provide necessary extra context. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains the bridge behavior and accessibility requirement.

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 parameterless command with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the main action, the prerequisite, and an important side effect (bridge survival). It could add a note about unsaved changes, but it is generally adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The 100% schema coverage means the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action as executing 'File ▸ New Live Set (Cmd-N)', indicating a command to create a new Live Set. The phrase 'for a clean slate' reinforces the intended purpose, and this is distinct from sibling tools like save_set or create_track.

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 context on when to use the tool ('for a clean slate') and a necessary prerequisite ('Requires Accessibility'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'clean slate' purpose and global preference note give reasonable usage guidance.

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