ramp_parameter

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) by disclosing that ramps are not undoable, cannot run inside a batch, that a new ramp on the same parameter replaces the old one, and that updates run at ~100/s inside Live. These are non-obvious operational constraints an agent must know before calling.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and duration, then constraints. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; none is redundant with the schema.

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 non-idempotent, non-undoable mutation with no output schema, the description covers the replacement semantics, batch exclusion, undo behavior, and units. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'from' defaults to the current value, values are in the parameter's own units, and the curve options are enumerated. The one gap is that the seconds range (0.01–3600) appears only in the schema, but that is minor.

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 precise verb (sweep) on a precise resource (a device or mixer parameter address) with the target, duration, and driving rate. It also distinguishes itself from draw_automation by naming it directly, so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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 scopes usage: 'For live gestures; use draw_automation for motion that belongs to a looping clip.' This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, which is exactly the routing an agent needs.

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