design_bass

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It openly discloses side effects: creating the Sublevel Bass track with a Drift bass if missing, writing macros, firing a clip, recording, and loading the patch into Live. It also states that the operation 'runs as a job,' which is an important asynchronous behavior. This is transparent enough for an agent to predict non-read-only 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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first, then details backend behavior. Every sentence adds either functional or side-effect information, though the backend branches are packed into dense prose that could be split into bullets.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, and two backend execution paths, the description covers the high-level behavior and side effects well. The output schema can explain return values, but the missing parameter definitions and the lack of a note about job lifecycle make it incomplete for correctly invoking the tool with custom settings.

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?

Brings `backend` to life by explaining what `vital` and `live` each do, and ties `brief` to the 'few words' target profile. However, `note`, `steps`, and `passes` are left completely unexplained, and with 0% schema coverage the description only partially compensates.

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?

States the core action explicitly: 'Design a bass patch toward the target's bass profile' and adds the free-text brief option. It clearly separates from searching/loading by naming `deliver_patch`, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from `find_bass_patches`. The two backend modes also clarify scope, though a direct sibling comparison would make it a 5.

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?

Contains actionable context for choosing between the `vital` and `live` backends and explains what each does. It does not, however, state when to use this tool instead of related siblings like `find_bass_patches` or `deliver_patch`, nor does it mention prerequisites. The usage guidance is implied by the purpose rather than explicit.

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