humanize_clip_velocity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the action (adding random variation) but does not mention whether the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it applies to all notes or selected notes, or any side effects. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist), but the behavioral depth is insufficient.

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 a single clear sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary parameter details in a scannable format. Every word earns its place; no 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, and the description covers its core function and all parameters. It could mention whether it modifies notes in place or returns anything, but the intent is clear. Missing a note about undo capability or determinism prevents a 5.

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%, meaning all parameter meaning must come from the description. The description provides helpful explanations for each parameter, especially 'amount' with concrete examples of +/-10% and +/-20%. This fully compensates for the bare 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 the tool's function: adding random velocity variation to notes in a clip. It uses a specific verb ('add') and resource ('notes in a clip'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like humanize_clip_timing by focusing on velocity. The purpose is immediately clear.

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?

The description implies when to use it (for humanizing velocity) simply by its wording. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling humanize_clip_timing makes the distinction obvious. The context is clear enough for selecting this tool, though it lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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