cw_transport_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical trait that these commands mutate state without opening a window and the call cannot confirm the result. That is genuinely valuable. It stops short of covering per-command behavior (does toggleLoop toggle?, does record need armed tracks?, does setLoopSelection require an existing selection?) or why the return value is unusable as confirmation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the full command list, then the key behavioral caveat. The list is long but unavoidable given the enum; no filler text.

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, and the description says only that the tool "returns what a computer-use runtime should look at" without describing the response shape or how to tell success from failure. For a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, that leaves the agent guessing about the return contract and about verification steps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only repeats the enum values already present in the schema. It adds no per-command semantics such as what setLoopSelection operates on, where insertTempoChange lands, or whether metronomePlayback toggles or sets.

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 names a concrete verb ("Send") and resource (transport/timing commands) and enumerates every supported command, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like cw_transport, cw_run_command, or cw_view_commands, which keeps it below 5.

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 phrase "returns what a computer-use runtime should look at" implies the agent must verify the post-hoc state itself, which is a usable usage cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. cw_transport / cw_run_command / cw_insert_commands guidance and no prerequisites stated.

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