create_song_patch

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about side effects: whether the target concert must be open and foreground (the schema's wait_seconds hints at this), whether the patch is persisted immediately, what happens on name collision, or whether the operation is reversible. For a creation/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap. It does at least confirm the tool writes a new patch rather than editing one, so it is not a 1.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, opening on the verb and resource. It is efficient, though the trailing field list is somewhat redundant with the schema and the sentence could have spent those words on prerequisites instead.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with a nested channel object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the what but not the how or the consequences. Parameter documentation is handled by the schema, which keeps this at a minimum-viable 3, but an agent still lacks the operational context (open concert requirement, positioning behavior, failure modes) needed to invoke it confidently.

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 100%, so every parameter, including the nested ChannelSpec fields, is already documented in structured form; baseline 3 applies. The description's phrase 'mixer settings' loosely maps to volume/pan on channels but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and it never mentions concert, position, transpose, or wait_seconds. It neither compensates for nor undermines the 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new patch for a song') and enumerates the content it carries: library sounds, tempo, time signature, mixer settings. That is enough to distinguish it from read-side siblings such as get_patch and list_patches without opening the schema. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an open concert, and no pointer to alternatives like set_patch_settings for modifying an existing patch. The only implicit signal is 'sounds from the library', which hints that sound names must come from a prior library search. That is not explicit guidance.

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