Create modulators

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

It discloses destructive re-run behavior ('rebuilds it in place, clearing that container's children'), timeline dependency ('only move while the timeline is playing'), tempo-lock expression behavior, and output structure (one Null CHOP with named channels). This goes well beyond the annotations, which only declare destructive=true and readOnly=false.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently covers output, tempo behavior, timeline constraint, and destructive re-run. No sentence is filler; each adds critical information for correct invocation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers return shape (Null CHOP 'mod_out'), integration with bind_to_channel, destructive consequences, and runtime constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some narrative context around rate_beats and phase ('stays phase-continuous'), but it mostly restates what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Build a bank of N BPM-synced LFOs in one self-contained container.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_tempo_sync by describing the LFO bank, per-modulator outputs, and the single Null CHOP it produces.

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 frames the tool as the 'everything breathes' lever and mentions readiness for bind_to_channel, implying a use case for animation/modulation needs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but it gives clear context about timeline-driven behavior and tempo locking.

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