Fl Pattern Set

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It provides useful specifics: 'FL's clearPattern opens a dialog, so steps only' explains why clear_steps excludes notes, and '0 = auto' for beats clarifies a special value. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, or the impact of setting name/color without other parameters, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs in parenthetical clarifications. It avoids redundancy and every clause adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers most operations but omits details like the format of color values (integer vs. string), the exact effect of burn_loops, and the behavior when optional parameters are null. Since there is an output schema, return values are not required, but the parameter semantics are not fully fleshed out, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps operations to parameters implicitly: 'rename' → name, 'resize (beats, 0 = auto)' → length_beats, 'recolour' → color, 'make current' → select, 'clear all step-sequencer steps' → clear_steps, 'bake per-channel loops' → burn_loops. While it explains the 0 = auto behavior, it does not explicitly link each action to its parameter name or describe the required 'pattern' parameter, which is a minor gap.

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 'Edit a pattern:' and lists specific editing operations (rename, resize, recolour, make current, clear steps, bake loops), making the verb and resource clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fl_pattern_create by focusing on modification rather than creation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only routing hint is 'notes via fl_notes_edit', which tells the agent to use a different tool for note editing, but it does not address broader scenarios like creating patterns or viewing them. This leaves the usage context under-specified.

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