apply_groove

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Apply a groove to a clip.' It does not reveal whether the operation is destructive, whether it is undoable, how it interacts with the clip's existing timing, or what the response indicates. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 brief and to the point, using a single sentence plus a clean parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema (titles match), but the added descriptions justify the format. It is easy to scan and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 parameter meanings, but it lacks crucial context for correct invocation: no mention of return value, error conditions, or side effects. For a tool that modifies a clip, the agent is left without information on how to interpret success/failure or whether the groove application replaces existing groove data. Given there is no output schema, the description should have explained these aspects.

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 supplements the schema by explaining each parameter: track_index, clip_index, and groove_index. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this text is essential and adds meaning beyond the type and title fields. The explanations are accurate and sufficient for an agent to map values to the correct indices.

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 the action: 'Apply a groove to a clip.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parameter list reinforces the target object. This distinguishes apply_groove from sibling tools like get_groove_pool (retrieves grooves) and commit_groove (commits a groove).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a groove existing in the pool), conditions under which it should be used, or when to prefer commit_groove or get_groove_pool. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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