plan_drum_pattern_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds scoping behavior (only selected lanes/bars, preserving unrelated notes) and the empty activeSteps clearing rule, which are not in annotations. This is valuable context beyond the structured data.

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 no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies a key behavioral rule. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 description covers the core purpose and a key behavior but does not mention the return value (expected for a plan tool) nor explain parameters like grid, startBar, or bars beyond the schema. For a tool with 6 parameters and a nested lanes array, it is somewhat sparse, though annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

The description adds meaning to 'lanes' and 'activeSteps' by explaining that empty activeSteps clears that lane and that the tool replaces selected lanes/bars. However, with only 50% schema coverage, many parameters (bars, grid, startBar, velocity, accentSteps, accentVelocity) lack descriptions, and the description does not compensate for those gaps beyond the lane/activeSteps interplay.

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') and resource ('replacement of explicitly selected drum lanes and bars in an existing MIDI clip'), and adds a key behavioral note about preserving unrelated notes. It clearly distinguishes from execution tools like edit_drum_pattern_clip via the 'plan' prefix, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

It gives context about when to use (for replacement of selected lanes/bars) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings such as plan_drum_pattern or edit_drum_pattern_clip. The 'plan' verb hints at a non-execution role, but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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