set_loop_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a write operation, that loop geometry changes occur in one undo step, that read-back verification is performed, and that a stuck setter raises an error. It does not specify permissions or what the read-back returns, but the mutation and failure behavior is well covered.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action, then cleanly separates side effects, an example, and edge cases. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema type.

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 simple one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description includes side effects, an example, and error conditions. It is nearly complete, lacking only a clear statement of what read-back verification returns or whether the setter can fail for other reasons.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. It provides the example set_loop_length(8.0) makes an eight-beat loop, clarifying that the number is in beats, and states that length must be positive. This adds useful meaning beyond the bare type in the schema, though it does not define non-integer behavior.

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 specific verb and resource: "Set Arrangement loop length." It also names the scope (Arrangement) and distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like get_loop_settings and other setter tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The description implies usage through the example and edge cases, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_loop or set_loop_start. There are no exclusions or routing conditions to guide selection among siblings.

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