chop_vocal

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 the algorithm (syllable slicing, 16th-note placement), the tuning constraint ('at most a tritone, correcting its tuning'), and the output shape ('One item per chop, all ordinary audio to edit afterwards'). It doesn't address failure modes or prerequisites, but for a creative generation tool the behavioral profile is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage routing, then result shape. The genre flavor ('the house / future-bass way') and 'one item per chop' line both carry information rather than padding.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the creative context, the process, and the return shape ('one item per chop, ordinary audio to edit afterwards'), which substitutes for a missing output schema. Parameter format details are left to the schema, which is acceptable given near-high coverage.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters (key, path, seed, chords, pattern, chords_item). The description adds concept-level meaning beyond that, notably the 'at most a tritone' tuning rule governing how the chords/key parameters act on each slice, tying the params together into a coherent effect.

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 ('Turns a real vocal sample into rhythmic vocal chops') and then details the transformation (slices at syllables, 16th-note pattern, shifts onto chord/key). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_robot_vocal with 'Real voices beat robot vocals, so use this first when the user's samples have vocals.' An agent can tell this apart from the robot-vocal sibling without opening either schema.

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?

'Use this first when the user's samples have vocals' gives a clear selection condition, and 'Real voices beat robot vocals' strongly implies the add_robot_vocal alternative. It stops short of explicitly naming that alternative tool or stating an exclusion, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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