map_drum_kit

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 scanning happens offline in a temporary item that is removed afterwards (a non-obvious side effect), and that the layout is persisted as a drum map. It omits any note on cost/duration of scanning an entire key range and doesn't clarify what happens when a sound can't be identified, leaving modest gaps for a mutation-plus-analysis tool.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; the core action and its mechanism are front-loaded, and the usage directive follows. Slightly long, but each sentence (mechanism, persistence, when-to-use, re-run trigger) contributes distinct information.

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 complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the process, the persistence behavior, and the downstream consumers. It never states what the call reports back (the identified note-to-sound mapping), which would help an agent interpret results, but otherwise it is close to complete.

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 low/high/save/overwrite/per_channel are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal meaning ('plays every key in the range' implies the low/high bounds), and does not elaborate on per_channel's channel-sweep semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource ('Works out a drum kit by ear') and explains the mechanism (plays every key, measures and identifies each sound). It clearly differentiates itself from adjacent siblings like build_drum_kit, save_drum_map, and list_drum_maps by describing an analysis/identification step rather than kit construction or storage.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use it whenever a kit's layout is unknown, instead of asking the user') and a re-run trigger ('map again after changing kit'), plus the downstream payoff (add_drum_pattern and genre grooves). It stops short of naming when not to use it or contrasting directly with build_drum_kit/save_drum_map, so it is strong context but not a full alternatives map.

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