follow_actions

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

Despite annotations only marking readOnly=false and destructive=false, the description discloses deep behavioral traits: emulation on a 10 ms timer, ~40 ms early trigger, once-per-pass execution, quantization-dependent timing, and that configurations are memory-only, lost on restart/reload, not undoable and not batchable. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the tool's nature stated first and mode-specific detail following. The run-on parenthetical sentences pack a lot in but remain readable; a little could be trimmed without loss, but nothing is wasted 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 complex, stateful, timing-sensitive tool with no output schema, the description covers activation conditions, timing caveats, persistence limits, and undoability. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without opening the source.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: `actions` may be names or {action,weight} objects chosen by weight each pass, the relative action set (next, previous, etc. relative to the clip's own track), and that after_bars/after_beats default to one pass through the clip. These go beyond the terse schema descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Clip follow actions') and immediately distinguishes the capability from what Live's API provides natively. The three modes (set/clear/status) are enumerated, so an agent knows exactly what the tool covers and how it differs from siblings like clip_action or launch.

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?

Gives concrete operating conditions: it only acts while transport runs and the clip plays, once per pass, and recommends q_none or matching quantization for tight timing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use follow actions in favor of another sibling, but the modal guidance is strong.

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