control_arrangement_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists actions without explaining side effects (e.g., zoom changes visible range, follow_on auto-scrolls). It also doesn't mention error handling or behavior for invalid track indexes. This is insufficient for a mutation-like tool.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and structurally clear. It lists parameters in a readable format with brief explanations. Every sentence contributes value without extraneous detail.

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 low complexity and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage. It documents all actions and the parameter's purpose, making it complete for typical invocation. It omits edge cases (e.g., out-of-range track_index) but those are not essential for baseline functionality.

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 description adds meaningful context to both parameters beyond the schema: it enumerates valid action values and specifies that track_index is 1-based and relevant only for collapse/expand. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the parameter semantics, and it does so effectively.

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 'Control the arrangement view,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. It lists distinct actions (zoom, scroll, follow, collapse/expand) that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_arrangement_info (reading) or set_ableton_view (switching views).

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 implicitly communicates when this tool is appropriate—any time the arrangement view needs to be manipulated. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the list of actions makes the context clear. No exclusions are necessary for this simple control operation.

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