Sketch Keep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that project contents (tempo, tracks, notes, fx) are copied, that lineage is recorded, that the first session is marked done (guide behavior changes), and that replace drops existing project contents. What's missing is permission requirements or whether the source sketch is preserved.

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 in the first clause, and every clause carries information (copy scope, lineage, guide behavior, param hints). It is dense and somewhat run-on, which costs it a point, but nothing is filler.

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, and the mutation's effects are described in detail. The main gap for a no-annotation mutation tool is error/precondition behavior (e.g., nonexistent project) and whether the source sketch survives.

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 explains 'sketch' well (letter like 'b' or folder name) and gives clear semantics plus conditionality for 'replace'. But 'project' is only referenced as a placeholder with no format guidance, leaving one of three parameters ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Make a sketch the song: its project (tempo, tracks, notes, fx) is copied to <project>'. This goes beyond the name and describes the concrete effect. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling 'sketch' or 'sketch_wait' as alternatives, so it falls 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 use case (promoting a sketch to a full project) is implied, and it gives one explicit usage rule: 'replace=True only when the person says to drop what <project> already holds'. However, it never states when to use this vs. 'sketch' or 'sketch_wait', nor any prerequisites.

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