plan_drum_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it plans against the current Live meter, supports three specific grid types, and clarifies that style examples are not treated as universal rules. It does not detail the output format, but for a read-only planning tool with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the grid options are enumerated, and the accent behavior is stated in a single clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only planning tool with annotations covering safety and a schema covering most parameters, the description is nearly complete. It could mention the output format or the relationship to sibling planning tools, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 50%, and the description adds meaning by explaining the grid options and the per-lane accent concept. The schema already documents gate, note, role, velocity, activeSteps, accentSteps, and accentVelocity, so the description's contribution is modest but real. It does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters (startBeat, bars, lanes semantics), but the schema covers most of the critical fields.

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 states a specific verb ('Plan'), a precise resource ('explicit multi-lane drum notes'), and a clear context ('against the current Live meter'). It also names the three supported grids and the per-lane accent capability, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_drum_pattern_edit, plan_drum_variation, and create_drum_pattern_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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when planning explicit drum notes on a specific grid, with per-lane accents, and it explicitly says it does not treat style examples as universal rules. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as plan_drum_pattern_edit or plan_drum_variation, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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