polynodes_poly_gates_switch

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the meaningful detail that gating is BPM-synced, which is not in the annotations, but says nothing about timing/latency or what 'JSON confirmation' actually contains beyond the output schema. Adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but the boilerplate 'Args:' and 'Returns:' blocks are template padding for a single trivially-named parameter and an already-published output schema. Efficient overall but not every line earns its place.

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 one-parameter idempotent switch with annotations and an output schema, the essentials are present, and the BPM-sync note helps. However, it omits any note on parameter meaning or interaction with playback timing, leaving minor gaps for a gating tool embedded in a larger synth.

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 reported at 0%, so the description is supposed to carry the load, yet 'params: state.' merely restates the parameter name without explaining the 0.0/1.0 semantics (the actual meaning lives only in the nested schema). It adds essentially no meaning beyond the structured field.

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 ('Turn Poly Gates on or off') and adds the scope qualifier 'BPM-synced layer gating', which lets an agent separate it from the many sibling *_switch tools that gate other modules (granular, filter, resonator, comb, etc.). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 named target ('Poly Gates') implies when this tool applies versus the other module switches, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditional logic, and no named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the resource name.

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