place_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully states the return value (clip id) and that `track` is 1-based, but says nothing about whether placing a pattern over an existing clip overwrites/truncates it, whether it is undoable, or what errors occur on invalid ids — critical for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the placement semantics front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is not the problem here — omission is.

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?

Purpose, core params, and return value are covered in two sentences, which is close to what an agent needs for a simple placement call; the gaps are in usage routing rather than missing explanation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for three of five params (`pattern` is an id, `track` is 1-based, `position` is a placement point), but `unit` (beats vs ticks enum) and `length` are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Place pattern ... in the playlist on track ... at position", naming the resource, destination container, and the return value (clip id). It is distinguishable from siblings like add_pattern (create) and set_clip, though it never explicitly contrasts with set_clip.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus set_clip, add_pattern, or apply_commands, and no prerequisites (does the pattern need to exist? does the track need to be an existing channel?). The agent must infer all routing decisions.

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