add_personality

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

The description discloses important behaviors: writing into an existing MIDI clip (mutation), drum personalities ignoring chord content, tempo range warnings but still producing output, compensation for density/swing, and default seed randomness. Without annotations, this provides comprehensive transparency.

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 and well-structured: a clear introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. Each sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

The description covers core functionality, parameter meanings, and edge cases. However, it does not mention the return value (since no output schema exists) and does not explicitly confirm that the clip is modified in place. These gaps slightly reduce completeness.

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 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 8 parameters: track_index and clip_index target clip, personality from list_personalities, chord_progression as list of chord symbols, bars_per_chord default, tempo with conditional query, octave_offset for register shift, and seed for reproducibility.

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 action ('Generate a part in the style of a named personality and write it into an existing MIDI clip') and specifies the resource (existing MIDI clip). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that the personality's role determines the part type and references list_personalities for available personalities.

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 clear context for parameter usage (e.g., tempo can be omitted and will be queried via get_session_info, drum personalities ignore chord content) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like add_personality_solo or state when not to use this tool.

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