write_drum_pattern

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description meaningfully supplements that by explaining that 'replace' mode overwrites those drums' notes and that patterns are looped across the clip. It does not discuss permissions, undo, or failure behavior, but it adds real context beyond the annotation.

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?

Front-loads the core action with a concrete example, then layers step syntax, naming resolution, velocities, swing, and mode. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the drum-name/GM mapping sentence is long and slightly packed.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the hard parts (pattern grammar, drum-name resolution, velocity and swing semantics). Gaps remain around the track, slot, and arrangement_clip parameters, but the critical creative input is well specified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description carries the full burden, and it documents pattern syntax (x/X/o/-/.), steps_per_beat=4 meaning 16ths, default velocities per symbol, swing range 0..1, and mode values. It leaves track, slot, and arrangement_clip unexplained, so it is strong but incomplete.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Write drums from step strings') plus the key behavior of repeating the pattern across the clip's loop, with a concrete example pattern. An agent can distinguish this drum-oriented step-string writer from generic siblings like write_notes without opening the schema.

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?

It explains the mode parameter's 'replace' vs 'add' semantics, which is a usage choice, but never says when to prefer this tool over write_notes/edit_notes or under what conditions it should be used. Usage is inferable from the domain but not stated.

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