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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the output as 'single sustained note with type-specific pitch, duration, and velocity,' details each impact_type's sonic character, and notes that pitch is overridden by type. It also clarifies the return value. However, it does not discuss potential side effects like whether it modifies existing data or requires a pre-existing track.

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 well-structured with a concise opening, bulleted parameter list, return note, and two examples. No fluff; each section adds information.

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 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions or annotations, the description covers all parameters, provides examples, and describes return values. The only minor omission is an explicit note on whether existing notes are affected, but the create intent is clear.

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's detailed parameter documentation is essential. It explains every parameter, including the impact_type enum values with pitch/character, unit_index behavior, defaults, and the meaning of velocity. This fully compensates 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 opens with 'Create an impact — single hit transition element for drops and section changes', giving a specific verb, resource, and purpose. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_riser/build-up by clarifying the 'hit' after a build-up.

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 states 'Essential for EDM transitions: the "hit" that lands after a riser/build-up,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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