Scaffold a MIDI-mappable VJ deck

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with the description's actions of building, adding, and creating components. The description details the behavior: it creates a deck, control surface, and midiinCHOP, and wires them together. It also explains default behavior for parameters. No annotation contradiction is present. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing components with the same name.

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 paragraph of approximately 120 words, which is concise given the complexity of the tool. It front-loads the core purpose and then details the components created. While it is relatively dense, it avoids unnecessary repetition. The structure is logical but could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of components.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and good schema coverage. The description explains the orchestration of sub-tools but does not specify the return value (e.g., the path to the created container). Given the lack of output schema, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool produces. The description is otherwise complete in terms of what it does, but the absence of output information is a notable gap.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool's description adds context by explaining how parameters relate to the composite tool (e.g., 'Pass deck_a/deck_b source TOP paths (or omit for test sources)'). However, the schema itself is already detailed, so the description adds marginal value beyond summarizing relationships. It does not introduce new semantics not already in 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 starts with 'Compose a complete, playable VJ deck UI in one call', which clearly states the verb 'compose' and the resource 'VJ deck UI'. It distinguishes itself from the lower-level 'create_decks' primitive by explaining it wires multiple primitives into one container. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the tool's role as a higher-level scaffold on top of 'create_decks', implying when to use it versus the underlying primitive. It details the components it builds (mixer, control surface, external I/O) and provides guidance on optional parameters like deck_a/b and midi_map. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, missing some differentiation from sibling tools.

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