replace_simpler_sample

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing a hard runtime prerequisite, a failure mode ('fails before writing'), the fact that it 'Replaces musical content,' and a key caveat that 'Readback is not an audio audition.' This gives the agent a strong behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

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?

Three short sentences each earn their place: the core action, the hard requirement/failure mode, and the behavioral caveat with a safety reminder. There is no fluff, and the most important purpose appears first.

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 destructive, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers the critical context: target confirmation, set preservation, environment prerequisites, failure behavior, and the meaning of readback. Nothing essential for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 67%; track_index and device_index are documented as zero-based indices, but path has no schema-level description. The description compensates by specifying the path must be an 'absolute local audio-file path,' adding essential meaning beyond the plain string type. It does not detail per-parameter semantics exhaustively, but the most ambiguous parameter is addressed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a Simpler sample with an absolute local audio-file path.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and target, distinguishing it from siblings like set_simpler_playback_mode or load_instrument_or_effect. The phrase 'replace a Simpler sample' is unambiguous and agent-actionable.

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 clear conditional prerequisites: 'Requires Live 12.4+ AND runtime API support; otherwise fails before writing.' It also offers safety guidance: 'confirm the target and preserve the original set.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related sample-manipulation tools, so it falls just short of full usage routing.

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