play_compose_tool

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'no project mutation' and clarifies it 'Does not change mute/solo/FX on the project', which is critical behavioral context. It also defines the 'tier' semantic. However, it does not discuss error behavior, playback blocking, or response timing.

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?

Extremely efficient. The first sentence states the primary purpose and key safety trait ('no project mutation'). The following lines provide targeted clarifications for parameter semantics with zero fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema. The description clarifies safety and 'tier', but fails to explain the purpose of 'dry_run' and 'rerender', which are not self-evident booleans. The interplay of track_ids with the time window is not elaborated either, leaving a complex tool underspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does explain the 'tier' parameter ('processed' vs 'raw') and the unit for time parameters ('timeline (session) seconds'). However, it leaves 'dry_run' and 'rerender' wholly unexplained, which is a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Mix selected tracks... optionally play') and resource ('timeline window'), which distinguishes it from generic 'play' siblings. It does not explicitly name a specific sibling to differentiate itself from, so it loses the 5th point.

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?

Provides useful context (e.g., 'tier is processed or raw', 'Times are timeline seconds') but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'play_audio_tool' or 'play_ab_tool'. It implies usage for mixing tracks but does not state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a specific sibling.

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