add_pattern_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that a default inner kick instrument is created, that notes can be added immediately, and that the track is triggered via place_bb_clip. This is useful side-effect disclosure for a creation tool.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information about what the tool creates or how to use it, with no filler. The Args line is slightly redundant with the schema but still helpful.

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?

For a simple one-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what kind of track is created, what instrument is defaulted, how to add notes, and how to trigger the clip. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a loaded project, but the low complexity makes this a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by documenting the sole parameter as 'Pattern track name', clarifying that the name identifies the track. For a single simple string parameter with a schema default, this is sufficient.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add a beat/bassline pattern track for drum sequencing.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling track-adding tools like add_instrument_track, add_sample_track, and add_automation_track, and the mention of a default kick instrument reinforces its drum-specific purpose.

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 workflow context: notes can be added immediately via add_note and triggered in the song editor with place_bb_clip. 'For drum sequencing' implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative track types or state when not to use it.

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