set_wavetable_modulation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context by noting that Live 11's API documented no setter and that the call reports absence rather than failing silently. It does not discuss reversibility or exact mutation effects, but the API-availability caveat is substantial.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact source list, one relevant caveat, and a clean bulleted parameter list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of schema fields.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the action, all parameters, valid sources, and a build-specific edge case. It is slightly incomplete regarding the exact numeric range of value and the relationship to sibling modulation tools, but overall it is a solid standalone specification.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining all six parameters: 1-based indexing, defaults, chain_index 0 meaning 'not in a rack', the explicit source list, and target_index provenance from get_wavetable_state. Only the numeric range for 'value' is left unspecified.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Set one cell of Wavetable's modulation matrix.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_wavetable_mod_target or set_wavetable_property, and the scope ('one cell') is precise.

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 gives useful prerequisites, such as 'target_index: Matrix target index from get_wavetable_state', and lists valid source names. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over add_wavetable_mod_target or set_wavetable_property, nor does it provide exclusions.

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