groove_set

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent writes, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds real value beyond that: patch semantics ('fields left out stay'), the interaction rule for style defaults, and 'Undoable', which tells the agent it can reverse the change via edit_undo.

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-loaded with the action and patch semantics, then the parameter enumeration and the default rule. It is dense and efficient, though the parameter list largely restates enum values already in the schema.

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 an 8-param optional-field mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what changes, what stays, default resolution, and reversibility. It stops short of saying whether the groove applies to already-recorded clips or only future playback, which would be the one remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented; baseline would be 3. The description earns above-baseline credit by stating the cross-parameter rule that selecting a style without amount or grid inherits the style's own values, which the schema cannot express.

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 ('Change the project groove') with a scope qualifier ('project') that implicitly separates it from the sibling groove_set_track. It doesn't name the sibling outright, but an agent can tell project-level vs track-level apart from the wording alone.

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?

Usage is implied by 'project groove' and the sibling name groove_set_track, but the description never says when to prefer this over the per-track variant or when to use groove_get first. The default-behavior note ('Picking a style without amount or grid takes the style's own') is helpful behavior, not routing guidance.

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