project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does this well for save — creating missing folders, writing a copy with no dialog, an untitled project adopting the path, and the precondition that save-without-path needs a named project — but the other four actions receive no behavioral disclosure at all (no indication of whether they overwrite existing tempo/markers or how they fail).

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action list appears before the save caveats. The telegraphic style ('save with path...') is dense but every clause carries operational meaning.

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 multiplexed tool with five actions and eleven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers only the save path. It leaves which parameters belong to which action and what each non-save action returns entirely to inference, which is inadequate for this complexity.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description explains only the action enum and the role of path for save. It never maps bpm, numerator/denominator, start_beats/end_beats, position_beats, region_end_beats, is_region, or name to their actions, so the agent must guess the action-to-parameter association.

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 title-like sentence 'Project-level edits' is weak on its own, but the action enumeration (tempo, time_signature, time_selection, marker, save) precisely delimits what this tool touches, so an agent can tell it edits project-level attributes rather than items, tracks, or fx. It never names a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short 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 is implied through the action list rather than stated: an agent must infer that this is the tool for setting tempo, time signature, time selection, and markers. Conditional guidance exists only for save ('with path' vs 'without path'), and there is no statement of when to prefer a sibling such as transport or action instead.

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