looper_control

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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: overdub continues until play, and 'the pedal sends no confirmation' warns the agent that it must verify state via get_status rather than trust a response. However, 'clear (deletes the loop)' describes irreversible data loss while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, a mismatch that could mislead an agent about risk.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action list with each action's behavior in parentheses, so there is almost no waste. The closing note about missing pedal confirmation is short and earns its place, though the sentences run together enough that the confirm-parameter implication is easy to miss.

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 output schema, the description covers all five actions' effects and flags the lack of device acknowledgement, which is the main thing an agent needs. The gaps are the unmentioned confirm requirement for clear and no guidance on how to verify the resulting loop state.

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 coverage is 50%, with the action enum and the 'confirm: Required for clear' description carrying the structured load. The description enriches the action values (overdub semantics, undo scope) but never mentions the confirm parameter, which is mandatory for clear, and 'the pedal sends no confirmation' can be misread as saying no confirm argument is needed.

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 enumerates the five looper transport actions (record, play, pause, undo, clear), which makes it clear this tool drives loop playback/recording rather than preset or effect management. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_looper, list_loops, or export_loop, though it never states the overall purpose in a single framing sentence.

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?

Per-action context is given ('undo (last rec session, in play mode)' implies undo only works while playing, and record keeps overdubbing until play), which implies when each action is appropriate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this tool over set_looper or list_loops, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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