plan_grid_envelope_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'No Live edits' adds no new safety information. However, the description does add genuinely new behavioral detail: it 'Rejects grid/bar misalignment' and specifies the output scope (exact native on/off steps, Beat Repeat Repeat coverage), which exceeds what annotations provide.

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 dead weight: purpose first, safety second, error behavior last. Every clause earns its place, and the key scoping constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Given the annotations cover the safety profile and the description names the destination write tool, the description is largely complete for a read-only planner. The remaining gap is the absence of any stated return format or structure for the envelope steps, which matters more because there is no output schema.

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 67%, with onValue, offValue, startBeat, activeSteps already documented in the input schema; the description adds semantic ties between the grid enum values and the 'straight or triplet rhythm' scope. But bars and grid still rely mostly on the schema's enum/constraints, and the description does not deeply elaborate parameter semantics, so the marginal value lands at the mid baseline.

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 (Read/return), a concrete resource (current Live grid and Session clip envelope steps), and scopes the output to straight or triplet rhythms including Beat Repeat Repeat. This distinguishes it from rhythm-planning siblings like plan_drum_pattern and write tools like set_clip_parameter_envelope.

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 makes the read-only planning context clear ('No Live edits') and points to the intended downstream consumer (set_clip_parameter_envelope validates before any write), which routes an agent toward the correct workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude, such as get_clip_parameter_envelope for reading existing envelopes, so it stops short of a 5.

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