load_item

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, which is thin. The description adds real behavioral context: loading selects the target in Live's window, preview is audible and needs no target, stop_preview reverses it, and the operation consumes 'One undo step'. This goes well beyond the annotations, though permission requirements and failure modes are unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and addressing, then target semantics, then the preview exception. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly heavy to parse in one block, which keeps it just under the top mark.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers addressing, target behavior, the preview alternative, exclusions, undo impact, and even the return value ('addresses of the devices it added'). An agent has what it needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully enriches params the schema describes only tersely: it explains what each target address form does (track/clip slot/device) and that action=preview bypasses loading and needs no target. That adds value beyond the schema's one-line 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?

States a specific verb (load) and resource (browser item) and immediately distinguishes the two addressing modes (path vs uri) plus what each target type does. An agent can tell it apart from browse without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use preview vs load ('plays an item on the preview channel without loading it'), when uri is fast vs slow, and states an exclusion: folders and categories cannot be loaded, browse into them. Nothing is left to inference.

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