Register Beat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a mutation ('添加或更新', add or update) but says nothing about permissions, whether an existing beat is overwritten, validation rules, or side effects. This is only a slight step above no behavioral information.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so it is structurally clean. However, it is under-sized for a tool with a nested object schema and many sibling operations, making it minimally adequate rather than well-calibrated.

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 complex nested beat object, 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves major gaps. It does not explain required beat fields, how updates are matched, or how this tool relates to the many beat/sibling tools in the environment.

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%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond naming the conceptual targets. It does not explain curve_id, project_id, or the nested beat object's required fields (id, depth, label) or optional fields such as type, emotion, scene_id, and thread_ids. For a nested-object tool with zero schema coverage, this is inadequate.

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 states a specific verb ('添加或更新', add or update) and resource ('节拍', beat) plus the target ('节奏曲线', rhythm curve), so an agent knows it writes into a pacing curve. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as suggest_beat, create_beat_sheet, or register_event, so it falls short of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The agent is not told whether this is for manually registering a beat versus using suggest_beat/suggest_next_beat, nor what conditions require an update rather than an insert.

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