apply_groove

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only describes the operation and parameter meanings. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it modifies the clip permanently, requires specific states (e.g., clip stopped), or potential side effects.

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 minimal and well-structured: a single sentence for purpose followed by a list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no fluff.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist), or the effect on the clip. A minimal 'modifies the clip's timing' would add completeness.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must fill the gap. It lists each parameter with a brief meaning (e.g., 'track_index: The index of the track'), which provides necessary semantic information beyond the raw integer types.

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 clearly states the tool applies a groove to a clip, which is a distinct operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like commit_groove or get_groove_pool, so it loses a point for lack of contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., commit_groove), nor any when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions. The description only states what it does, not context.

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