apply_monophonic_audio_tuning

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

Annotations only declare safety/idempotency flags; the description goes well beyond, disclosing the two-phase plan-then-confirm flow, SHA-256 source hashing, binding to current clip state, native pitch readback verification, the 60-second length cap, and the stereo-channel-agreement requirement. That is rich behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: purpose+constraints first, mechanism/verification second, exclusions last. Front-loaded and every clause carries information, though the middle sentence is packed tightly enough to slow reading.

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 no-output-schema, 7-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the preconditions, safety flow, and scope limits that an agent needs. It does not describe the plan/result shape, but with no output schema that is only a minor residual 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (clipId, dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, targetMidiNote, expectedStateVersion, trackId) is already self-documented. The description hints at the plan/confirm relationship but adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (plan/apply) and resource (Live clip coarse/fine pitch offset) with a clear scope qualifier: full-source monophonic analysis of a local source. An agent can tell it apart from MIDI-oriented siblings like apply_midi_transposition or MIDI plan_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Clearly delimits when the tool applies (whole-clip tuning of a stable monophonic source up to 60s) and explicitly rules out adjacent cases: note-by-note vocal correction, rendered audio analysis, and audible validation. It lacks an explicit named-alternative pointer, but the exclusions do the routing work.

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