humanize_clip_velocity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core effect (random velocity variation) and the meaning of 'amount' with examples, but does not disclose whether the modification is destructive, whether it clamps velocity values, or applies to all notes in the clip.

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 two sentences plus a compact parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action and every line adds information without redundancy.

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, the description covers the action, parameters, and behavior. It does not specify whether the operation applies to all notes or preserves original velocities, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter: track_index, clip_index, and amount with concrete examples (0.1 = +/-10%, 0.2 = +/-20%). This adds meaning beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and specific resource ('random velocity variation to notes in a clip'), and the phrase 'more human feel' clarifies intent. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'humanize_clip_timing' which would handle timing.

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 alternatives or exclusions are provided. The description implies usage for humanizing velocity but does not compare with 'humanize_clip_timing' or state when not to use.

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