project_set_ripple_mode

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

With no annotations, the description explains the effect of ripple mode on editing (shifts subsequent items) and enumerates the mode values. It could mention potential side effects like impact on undo history, but overall it is transparent.

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 two short paragraphs plus an Args line, with no redundant information. Every sentence contributes to understanding, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one integer parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, parameter meaning, and use case. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema provides no description for the 'mode' parameter (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining each value: 0=off, 1=per-track, 2=all-tracks, adding essential meaning.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'REAPER's ripple edit mode', and explains what ripple mode does, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle items, tracks, FX, etc.

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 context (critical for dialogue/podcast editing) but does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. Since no sibling tools serve the same purpose, the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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