humanize_clip_velocity

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool adds random velocity variation but does not clarify if it modifies all notes, if changes are permanent/reversible, or any side effects like overwriting existing velocities. This lack of detail is a gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise with a single purpose sentence followed by a parameter list. Every sentence is necessary and no fluff exists. It is front-loaded with the action then parameter 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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks constraints (e.g., amount range, input types) and does not mention return value or confirmation. Completeness is decent but not thorough.

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 0%, so the description fully explains all three parameters. It defines track_index, clip_index, and amount with examples (e.g., 0.1 => +/-10%). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 adds random velocity variation to notes in a clip for a human feel. The verb 'add' and resource 'notes in a clip' are specific. The purpose is distinct from siblings like humanize_clip_timing and quantize_clip_notes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool is provided. It does not mention alternatives or conditions (e.g., requires a MIDI clip). The description only states the action without usage context.

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