edit_drum_pattern_clip

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'guarded replacement' and 'preserves unrelated notes', which provides some safety context, but it omits the two-phase plan/apply flow, the need for expectedStateVersion, and the confirmation token mechanism. The description carries partial burden but is incomplete.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and include a key safety behavior. No filler 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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and a two-phase guarded workflow, the description is too sparse. It omits essential workflow details such as the dryRun/confirmationToken flow, how to obtain planHash, and the role of expectedStateVersion, making safe invocation difficult without deep schema inspection.

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 70%, leaving bars, grid, and startBar without descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning; it relies entirely on the schema. Given the gaps, the description should compensate but does not.

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 the action: replace selected drum lanes and bars in an existing MIDI clip, with 'Plan or apply' indicating two modes. It is specific about the resource and operation, but it does not differentiate from siblings like plan_drum_pattern_edit or apply_drum_variation.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain when to plan versus apply, nor mention prerequisites such as an existing clip or the need for a prior plan. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema.

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