Make a component react to audio

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical behavioral details: it modifies parameters by switching to expression mode, appends a master knob, and describes fail-forward behavior (warnings vs fatal). This goes beyond the annotations to inform the agent about side effects and error handling.

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 with a clear front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more concise. It effectively uses examples and lists without being verbose.

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 the complexity of 5 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description fully equips the agent. It covers auto-mapping vs explicit mappings, master knob behavior, fail-forward warnings, and prerequisites ('Build the feature CHOP with extract_audio_features first'). No critical gaps remain.

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 100% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the auto-map heuristic (e.g., bright/level/opacity→level), the master knob behavior (scales every binding), and the expected channels for source_chop. This extends the schema's utility, though the schema already provides adequate baseline.

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 verb ('Make a whole COMP react to the music'), resource ('COMP with numeric knobs'), and effect ('each knob is switched to expression mode'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by calling it 'the core VJ move' and later referencing the alternative 'bind_to_channel for finer single-parameter control'.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('to react a whole COMP to music') and when to use an alternative ('use bind_to_channel for finer single-parameter control'). It also provides setup guidance ('Build the feature CHOP with extract_audio_features first') and explains auto-mapping versus explicit mappings.

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