load_sample

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call verifies bytes/marker/Warp state and goes through the native replace_sample method, but it does not say what specifically is destroyed or whether the operation is reversible, leaving a gap for a mutation tool.

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 short, front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and then supply the addressing detail. Little waste, though the mention of 'no browser index or UVR' is somewhat tangential to the core instruction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers addressing and method. However, for a destructive replace operation it omits failure behavior and reversibility, and does not restate the confirm-based dry-run flow that the schema describes, leaving the behavioral picture partial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including confirm and warp semantics. The description only adds the nested-device-path addressing concept that maps to device_path; otherwise it does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Replace a Simpler sample by file path and verify its bytes, marker and Warp state.' The second sentence clarifies the Drum Rack pad addressing and that it uses the native replace_sample method, which implicitly separates it from browser-index-based loaders among the siblings (find_sound, load_device). Strong, though no sibling is named 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?

'No browser index or UVR is required' gives a hint about when this route is appropriate versus browser-based approaches, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative among clear_automation/load_device/load_drum_pad. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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