pattern_burn_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the transformation direction (loop-recorded takes become editable note data) and the default target pattern, but it does not disclose whether burning is destructive, whether original takes are removed, or whether existing note data is overwritten.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parenthetical defaults detail is placed at the end where it belongs.

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 has low complexity—one optional parameter and no output schema—so the description covers its basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it omits side effects and failure conditions (e.g., what happens if there are no loop-recorded takes, or whether the operation is irreversible), which an agent would need for safe invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully explain the sole optional index parameter: omitting it targets the current pattern. For a single optional integer parameter, this is sufficient practical guidance.

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 uses a specific verb ('Burn'), a clear resource ('the pattern's loop-recorded takes'), and a concrete outcome ('editable note data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pattern_select or piano_roll_write_pattern, which do not mention loop-recorded takes.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisite conditions. There is no mention of when burning loop-recorded takes is appropriate or when a different pattern/piano-roll tool should be used instead.

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