verify_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that it REALLY mutates, that it is undo-block wrapped (one Ctrl/Cmd+Z reverts), that it costs TWO renders blocking the REAPER UI, and that it needs allow_audio_writes. It defines all three terminal statuses including the dangerous UNVERIFIED case (possible partial change, not rolled back).

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?

It is long, but front-loads the core mechanism and mutation warning, then the status taxonomy, with no filler sentences. Every clause conveys distinct, decision-relevant information for a genuinely complex operation, though the density is near the upper bound.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does, enumerating the reported audio deltas (LUFS-I always; spectrum/peak/stereo with Post Mortem) and status semantics. Given the operation's complexity and reversibility stakes, nothing an agent needs for a correct call is 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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds only light context (track pinned by GUID, payload 'as for raw_command') and does not supply syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource with its distinguishing mechanism: 'Run ONE mutating bridge command with MEASURED proof' via before/after capture. This clearly differentiates it from the raw_command sibling, which applies changes without proof. An agent can select it without opening any 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 names when to use it (need measured proof of a mutation's effect), when to confirm intent first (destructive command types: delete_track, delete_items_in_range, remove_fx), and when NOT to retry (UNVERIFIED outcomes). It also routes to capture_track_audio for the allow_audio_writes prerequisite.

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