set_groove

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses a significant side effect ('Affects every clip using this shared groove'), highlights the guarded plan/apply nature, and explicitly excludes baking or extracting. This adds genuine behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every clause carries distinct information: edit scope, value ranges, shared-clip side effect, and explicit exclusions.

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 an 11-parameter, two-phase mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus a fully documented schema is nearly sufficient. It covers scope, side effect, range behavior, and key exclusions. The dry-run/confirmation flow is left to the schema, which already documents it well, but there is no explicit guidance on sibling-tool selection.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description summarizes the range split (0–100 for timing/random/pre-quantization, -100–100 for velocity), but those details already exist in the schema's min/max and property descriptions. It adds a useful summary without introducing new parameter semantics.

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 concrete action pair ('Plan or apply'), a specific resource ('Groove Pool'), and the exact edit scope ('base-grid, name and percentage edits'). It also distinguishes itself by saying what it does not do ('does not bake or extract a groove'), which helps separate it from inspection and creation tools.

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 communicates a two-phase guarded workflow (plan vs apply) and warns that edits affect every clip using the shared groove. However, it never names alternatives such as create_groove, inspect_clip_groove_postconditions, or set_clip_timing, nor does it state when to prefer them. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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