write_automation

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it replaces existing envelopes. This provides clear behavioral insight beyond the annotation, though no additional side effects or permissions are discussed.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences cover purpose, format, and behavior. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having a compact description, it fails to cover the semantics of 80% of the required parameters. An agent with schema coverage 0% would struggle to understand how to identify the target device and parameter. The description leaves significant gaps for a tool with five required inputs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls on the tool description. Only the 'points' parameter is explained with format details. The other four parameters (track_index, clip_index, device_index, parameter) are left undefined, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from context.

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 clearly states the tool writes clip automation for a device parameter, specifying the points format. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'set_device_parameter' and 'clear_automation' by focusing on automation curves and replacement.

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 mentions that it replaces any existing envelope, giving some context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'set_device_parameter' for static values.

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