Set sequencer steps

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it toggles steps and sets note parameters, but doesn't disclose whether updates overwrite or merge existing steps, what happens with patternLength, or whether the whole sequence is replaced. Some value is added, but key behavioral traits remain opaque.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value. No filler or redundancy. The description is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and update capabilities, but leaves out the effect of patternLength and the broader mutation mechanics (e.g., whether updates are cumulative or replace the pattern). With no output schema, the return behavior is also unknown. Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for full usage.

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 must compensate. It does partially: 'toggle a step' maps to the 'enabled' field, and note/velocity/gate map directly to the nested update object's properties. However, trackId and patternLength are not explained, though they are relatively self-explanatory from 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 it edits step-sequencer or piano-roll notes, with a specific verb ('Edit') and resource. It lists concrete capabilities (toggle a step, set MIDI note, velocity, gate length), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_audio_clip or set_mixer.

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 vs alternatives. The description only states the action itself without prerequisites, exclusions, or mention of other tools. It doesn't provide context like 'for modifying MIDI patterns' or 'instead of updating track parameters.' This is similar to the update_drive example which scored 2.

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