save_drum_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose two important behaviors: persistence ('in this and future sessions') and overwrite semantics ('Replaces any map with the same name'). It stops short of covering permissions, what a successful save returns, or whether the instrument must already exist.

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 tight sentences: the first explains what it does and why it matters, the second front-loads the overwrite constraint. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, persistence, and overwrite behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. It is slightly thin on error/precondition context but not meaningfully incomplete.

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 the schema already documents both 'mapping' and 'instrument' thoroughly, including format examples and per-channel variants. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remembers which notes an instrument's drums are on') and identifies the downstream consumer, add_drum_pattern. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from closely related siblings like map_drum_kit, list_drum_maps, or delete_drum_map, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 mention that add_drum_pattern 'gets them right' implies this should be set up before generating drum patterns, which gives implicit usage context. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs map_drum_kit, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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