groove_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: preview is offline while commit performs one guarded Live batch, and it flags rights/mapping/capability/epoch/slot-race edge cases. But 'are explicit' is opaque, and it omits reversibility, permission/rights prerequisites, and what the guarded batch can modify beyond the target slot.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and side effects, and the inline mode example is useful. The final 'edge cases ... are explicit' sentence is vague filler that consumes space without conveying actionable detail.

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 9-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical side-effect asymmetry (offline preview vs guarded commit) but leaves parameter meanings and the shape of the returned 'bounded receipt' largely unexplained. It is partially complete rather than adequate end-to-end.

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 0% across 9 parameters. The description only clarifies mode (preview/commit) and gestures at the target slot; artifact_id, kit_mapping_profile, schema_version, source_channel, source_track_index, and expected_empty_slot remain completely undocumented in both schema and prose. For a 9-param tool it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (apply) and a precisely scoped resource (one mapped groove to one empty clip slot), and disambiguates the two modes (preview vs commit). It is distinguishable from siblings like groove_generate, groove_search, and groove_compare, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 preview/commit split implies a safe preview-first workflow, and the default mode=preview reinforces this. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes the agent to a sibling tool (e.g. when to search vs apply a groove). Usage is only implied.

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