envelope_add_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the create-if-missing behavior (default True) and the value/shape semantics, but is silent on whether inserted points merge with or overwrite existing points at the same time, on validation failure behavior, and on any permission or automation-mode prerequisites.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by clearly separated reference sections (shape codes, value units, Args). The value-unit conversion details are dense but all earn their place; the formatting could be trimmed slightly but there is no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the domain knowledge an agent needs to construct valid calls (units, shape codes, sentinels, defaults). It omits return-value behavior and point-merge semantics, which are the only meaningful remaining gaps.

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%, yet the description documents every one of the six parameters in an Args block plus a separate legend: shape codes 0-5, tension range -1 to +1, per-envelope value units (linear gain, pan -1..1, mute 0/1, normalized FX params), the points JSON object shape, and the -1 sentinel for fx/param_index. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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 opening line gives a specific verb and resource ('Batch-insert automation points into an envelope'), which is unambiguous and distinct from the read-side sibling envelope_get_points. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or contrasting scope, so it does not fully reach the sibling-differentiation bar of a 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the fx_index/param_index = -1 convention and the envelope_name default tell the agent which target it is writing to, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or exclusion versus envelope_clear_range or envelope_get_points. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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