piano_roll_write_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses sequencing, restoration timing, default restore behavior, clearing behavior, force_retarget semantics, and the safe default. It also tells the agent that restore_start default leaves the tool on the last edited pattern, and describes the exact return shape.

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 well-structured with a first-line summary, an explanatory parallel, Args, and Returns. There is slight redundancy between the opening sentence and the 'Mirrors' paragraph, but overall every section earns its place and the most important behaviors are front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it documents all parameters, defaults, the writes array internals, the return value, and the key behavioral nuances. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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?

The input schema provides only titles and types; with 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully. It defines the writes item structure including channel, pattern, notes, and the optional current_note_count, and explains the behavior of clear_first and restore_start including defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: writes notes to multiple channel × pattern pairs sequentially. The plural 'patterns' and the explicit mention of multiple pairs distinguish it from the singular sibling piano_roll_write_pattern. The parallel to piano_roll_read_patterns_autolocate reinforces the intended operation.

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?

Explains how this tool should be used in combination with a prior read sweep via current_note_count, and explicitly contrasts its sequential behavior with jumping back between writes. It gives a safety default for force_retarget, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over piano_roll_write_pattern or other alternatives.

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