Pattern Write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it omits the critical mutation semantics: that mode defaults to 'replace' (implying existing notes are overwritten), what dur does, and how bar placement interacts with the tiled span. It explains encoding nicely but not the destructive/write behavior.

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 text is dense and free of filler, but it front-loads encoding detail instead of the tool's purpose, and the compact notation style (with legend parentheses) is readable but not optimally structured for an agent scanning for intent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter, annotation-free write tool the description omits the write semantics (replace vs add), parameter roles for bar/dur/mode, and any usage context, leaving significant gaps.

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% across 8 params, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for lanes (character legend), step (beats per char), and repeat (tiling), but leaves bar, dur, mode, track, and project completely undocumented.

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 is framed around the lane notation format rather than stating the action. From the name and required params (project, track, bar, lanes) an agent can infer it writes a step pattern into a track at a bar, but the description never says 'write' and does not distinguish it from siblings like notes_write or notes_transform.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (notes_write, notes_clear, notes_transform). It explains the input encoding but not the situations that call for pattern_write.

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