set_drum

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world, and nothing in the description contradicts them. The description adds real behavioral value beyond annotations by disclosing that the tempo also drives the delay tempo — a side effect an agent could not infer from the schema — plus the start/stop semantics tied to the 'playing' parameter.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and then listing capabilities. The telegraphic label-style list ('pattern (...)'), 'start/stop') is efficient but slightly hurts readability compared to full clauses.

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?

With four optional parameters, no output schema, and mutation semantics including a side effect on delay tempo, the description covers the basics but omits what happens if called with no parameters, whether changes apply live during playback, and how sync_with_looper interacts with looper_control. Adequate, but gaps remain for a stateful audio-mutation tool.

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 only 25%, so the description must carry the load: it explains pattern range and its link to list_drum_patterns, states tempo is in BPM with a side effect on delay, and maps sync/start/stop. However, sync_with_looper — the most ambiguous parameter — is never explained (what sync implies for looper playback), so a quarter of the parameters remain opaque.

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 names the resource (drum machine) and enumerates exactly what is controllable: pattern, tempo, looper sync, and start/stop. An agent can tell this is a configuration/setter tool, though the phrasing is a noun-list rather than a verb phrase, and there is no explicit differentiation from set_looper or looper_control, which touch the same sync concept.

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?

One genuine routing hint exists: pattern names come from list_drum_patterns, telling the agent to call a sibling first. Otherwise there is no guidance on when to use this versus looper_control or set_looper, and no note on prerequisites such as whether playback must be stopped before changing the pattern.

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