plugin_add_drum_kit

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the Sampler-backed nature, the one-pad/one-MIDI-note mapping, and that it automates boilerplate. It does not state side effects, reversibility, or what happens to existing track contents, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the action, then provide the pad structure, behavior, and context. No filler or restatement of the schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return values, error behavior, and side effects on the target track. It is sufficient for a straightforward call but not fully complete for confident invocation.

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 partially compensates by defining pads as a list of {midi_note, sample_path, name?, gain_db?, pan?, decay?} and explaining pad-to-note mapping. It does not explain track_id or name, nor the units/semantics of gain_db, pan, and decay, so the compensation is 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 ('Add a Sampler-backed drum kit to a track') and clarifies the pad-to-SOUND/MIDI-note mapping. It also distinguishes itself from generic plugin_add by describing drum-kit-specific behavior and by noting it replaces manual Sampler boilerplate.

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?

Description tells the agent this is the intended way to add a drum kit and that it replaces manual Sampler+sounds boilerplate in compose_lofi_track. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare against sibling tools like plugin_add, but the context is clear enough.

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