build_drum_kit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it discloses the implementation (one sampler instance per drum), the key-mapping convention (General MIDI), and the downstream benefit that samples can be swapped by name later. It does not cover permissions, error conditions, or what the call returns, but the core side-effect profile is well conveyed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and mechanism; the second sentence handles legitimate scope concern (works with any samples) in a single clause. No filler or repetition.

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 moderately complex setup tool with a nested samples object and no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and sample scope adequately. It stops short of describing return values or error behavior, and there is no output schema to offload that, so a small gap remains.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; every parameter including the nested samples map, release_s, velocity_db and trim_silence already has schema-level documentation. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Builds a drum kit from sample files'), naming the concrete mechanism (one ReaSamplOmatic5000 per drum on GM keys), which is far more than a tautology. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the general sampler tool, but does not explicitly separate itself from siblings like build_sampled_instrument or map_drum_kit.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative guidance is given. The track prerequisite ('an empty track, or one without another instrument') lives only in the schema, and no sibling such as build_sampled_instrument or add_drum_pattern is referenced to route the agent. The scope note about accepting any samples is not usage guidance.

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