load_instrument_for_personality

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core algorithm (walk hints, search, load highest-scored), the replacement behavior of the Live API, and the return value. It lacks details on error handling or prerequisites but is generally transparent.

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 well-structured: purpose, algorithm, important note (replacement), parameter descriptions, and return value. Each sentence serves a purpose, no fluff. It is concise yet informative.

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 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the algorithm, parameters, and return values. It references list_personalities and BROWSER_HINTS adequately. Minor gap: no mention of fallback if search fails, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains track_index as 'target track', personality as 'any key from list_personalities', and prefer_preset as 'rank Instrument Racks above raw samples'. This adds context beyond the schema, though not exhaustive (e.g., no range for track_index).

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 primary purpose: 'Load the best Ableton instrument for the named personality onto a track.' It explains the algorithm using BROWSER_HINTS and distinguishes itself from siblings like load_instrument_by_name by focusing on personality-driven selection.

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 implies usage when you have a personality and want the best instrument, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not guidance. It lacks direct statements about when to use this vs. load_instrument_by_name or load_instrument_or_effect.

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