lc_write_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it covers the crucial behavioral facts: token-by-tick semantics, holds, fades, modifiers, and the explicit warning that 'The page is replaced entirely.' It does not cover error behavior or results, but the essential destructive and formatting behavior is disclosed.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, token grammar, modifiers, example, and replacement semantics are all packed in without filler. The core action is front-loaded and the syntax reference follows logically.

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-parameter composition tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description plus fully covered input schema is enough to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the pattern string thoroughly, notes replacement behavior, and the schema documents the remaining parameters such as force and ticksPerPage.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by defining the pattern-string grammar, per-tick timing, token meanings, and optional modifiers (*volume, +effect, ^expression, ~pan, %envelope). It also links 'C5@25' to instrument presets, enriching the bare schema descriptions of pattern and instrument.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Write one page of one channel from a compact pattern string,' and calls it 'the main composing tool,' which distinguishes its role from sibling tools like lc_set_notes and lc_clear_pages. It also closes with 'The page is replaced entirely,' making the destructive scope unmistakable.

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?

Calling it 'the main composing tool' gives a general sense of when to use it, but it never names alternatives or states when to prefer lc_set_notes, lc_clear_pages, or lc_create_song. No explicit when-not-to-use conditions are given, so the guidance is implied rather than fully actionable.

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