clips_write_drums

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false; the description adds real context beyond them by stating that the existing pattern is replaced, that merge preserves untouched lanes, that writes are undoable, and that polymeters are allowed. That is meaningful mutation-behavior disclosure, though it does not mention permission/eligibility requirements.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource, then scoping, then notation rules and the replace/merge guarantee. The example patterns are compact and directly operational; no sentence is filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs to construct valid calls: notation semantics, rate interpretation, replace-vs-merge behavior, and undoability. No output schema is needed since only a write acknowledgment is expected.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description still adds value: it explains the step alphabet (x/X/.), that bars may be marked with '|' or spaces, that lane lengths may differ, and that at 1/16 sixteen steps equal one 4/4 bar. It goes beyond the schema field text rather than repeating it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write a drum pattern into a session slot") and immediately scopes it ("a TOMNIC track"), explicitly contrasting with clip-note writing, which is what sibling clips_write_midi does. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Implies the target condition (TOMNIC tracks that use their own step patterns) and explains mode selection ("Replaces the pattern, or with mode merge only the lanes given"). It does not explicitly name the alternative tool for non-TOMNIC tracks, so guidance is clear but not fully routing.

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