set_drum_pad_state

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is thin. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it can operate in a planning mode ('Plan'), it mutates mute/solo state, it requires an exact state version ('guarded rack snapshot'), and it explicitly does not assign sounds. It does not detail side effects on existing mute/solo states or confirmation requirements, but the schema covers the confirmation token.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the exclusion is stated in a short second sentence. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema covers the core workflow: plan via dryRun, confirm with token, guard with expectedStateVersion. It does not explain return values or failure modes, but the schema's parameter descriptions carry much of that burden. The main gap is not describing what happens to existing mute/solo states on the pad, but that is a minor omission.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds the semantic that the pad is identified by MIDI note and that the operation is guarded by expectedStateVersion, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 or mute/solo'), a precise resource ('exact populated Drum Rack pad by MIDI note'), and a key exclusion ('Does not assign sounds to pads'). This clearly distinguishes it from sound-assignment or pattern-planning siblings like plan_drum_pattern or set_device_parameters.

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 the two-phase plan/confirm workflow via 'Plan or mute/solo' and 'guarded rack snapshot', and the dryRun/confirmationToken schema makes the usage context clear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the guarded-snapshot language and exclusion of sound assignment give reasonable context.

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