place_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the pattern starts empty and that notes added later go into the first pattern. However, it does not describe side effects like overwriting existing clips, error behavior, or whether the clip is appended or inserted, leaving some 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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence summary, a brief workflow note, and a compact Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes scanning for parameter semantics easy.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and its relationship to add_note, which is enough for basic invocation. It does not discuss error cases, validation, or explicit comparisons to similarly named clip-placement tools, but given the output schema and reasonably straightforward behavior, it is largely 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explains every parameter with meaningful semantics: track_index identifies the instrument track, pos_bars is in bars with 0 meaning beginning, name defaults to track name, and length_bars is pattern length in bars. This fully makes up for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific action, resource, and scope: 'Place an empty pattern clip on an instrument track (song arrangement).' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like place_sample_clip and place_bb_clip, and the 'empty pattern' phrasing further differentiates it from note-adding tools.

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: it can be used to sketch the arrangement structure first, and it notes that add_note places notes into the first pattern. It does not explicitly list or exclude alternatives among other placement tools, but the guidance is sufficient to infer appropriate use.

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