set_beat_repeat_grid

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which could be ambiguous, but the description goes beyond this by stating that native execution rechecks the complete device, routing, and transport snapshot before writing, and that observed parameter equality is reported, not an audible or beat-scheduled result. This is critical transparency about its behavior and limitations, exceeding 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and source of valid values. The fail-closed clause is clear, and the recheck/equality caveat is a single sentence. There is no wasted text; each sentence contributes essential information.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description covers the critical aspects: what to use for gridDisplayValue, the requirement for exact state version, the dryRun confirmation flow, and the behavioral caveat about rechecks and reporting. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly, especially given the schema descriptions for each parameter.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds clarifying context that gridDisplayValue must be an exact native display value (e.g., 1/12) from gridChoices, and that expectedStateVersion must be the exact observed before planning. This adds value beyond the schema, which only says 'exact' for gridDisplayValue.

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 explicitly states this tool plans or requests a specific native Beat Repeat Grid display division, sourced from get_beat_repeat_performance_context.gridChoices, and emphasizes exactness and fail-closed behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like set_beat_repeat_enabled and set_beat_repeat_interval, which have different purposes.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for setting a specific grid division, sourced from a context tool, and that ambiguous or unavailable labels fail closed. It implies the plan-execute flow via dryRun and confirmationToken, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus set_beat_repeat_interval or other beat repeat tools, nor when not to use it.

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