music_generate_drum_groove

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that there are no side effects unless apply is true, that apply creates exactly one clip plus its notes atomically in a single undo step, that output is deterministic, and that invalid apply calls are rejected at the model. It even names the return field traits_applied and the fixed application order of the traits axes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb, then clearly labeled Side effects / Example / Edge cases sections. Four short paragraphs, each carrying distinct information (write semantics, invocation template, validation rule, trait semantics) with no 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 six-parameter generative mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers safety, atomicity, determinism, validation and return-field naming. What is missing is minor: the shape of the returned notes and whether a target track/clip must already exist in session are not spelled out.

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 0% and none of the six parameters carry descriptions, so this text does the documentation work: it explains apply, ties track_index/clip_index to the apply precondition, lists the four valid traits keys with their 0..1 range and fixed ordering, and shows bars/seed in the example. bars and seed are only implicitly explained (length, determinism), keeping it short of a 5.

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 ('Generate a deterministic kick-and-hat groove') plus the optional output target ('optionally into a clip'). The coupled content-and-verb phrasing distinguishes it from siblings like music_generate_bass and groove_generate without the agent opening any 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?

It clarifies the use-mode split (generate notes only by default, write a clip when apply=true) and shows a concrete call example, which implies when to reach for it. However, it never names or contrasts an alternative sibling (e.g. groove_generate, add_notes_pattern, create_clip), so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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