place_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the core audio transformations (time-stretch preserving pitch, transposition, repetition to fill bars), which is real behavioral content. It does not say whether it creates a new item vs. overwrites existing material, whether it is undoable, or what happens when loop_bpm is unknown and must be measured.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the optional transformations in order. Every clause carries meaning; the trailing parentheticals are informative rather than 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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only narrative source, and it covers what the tool does but not its side effects, error behavior, or how the result should be verified. For an 8-parameter mutation tool in a rich sibling set, that leaves the agent with 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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter. The description restates the same concepts (match_tempo, to_key/semitones, bars) without adding format, precedence, or interaction rules beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource is specific ('Puts a loop on a track') and the clause list clarifies the transformation: tempo-stretch with pitch preservation, optional key move, and bar-filling repetition. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as insert_audio_file or place_motif, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from 'loop' and the schema's 'from find_samples' that this is the loop-placement step after find_samples/analyze_sample, but that routing is not in the description.

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