compose_drums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and determinism. The description adds 'without changing FL' which reinforces the read-only behavior but contributes little beyond annotations. It does not describe how output is delivered (e.g., returned pattern object) or any side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then states a key behavioral constraint. No wasted words; brevity is appropriate for a simple generation tool.

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?

With 7 parameters, a complex drum_map schema, and a rich environment of sibling tools, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how the output is provided (despite an output schema), what role seed/style play, or how the drum_map fallback works—leaving agents to infer critical usage context from parameter names alone.

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 only 43%, and the tool description does not compensate. It mentions 'mapped' which hints at the drum_map parameter, but seed, style, swing, and other parameters are not elaborated. The description adds minimal meaning beyond what parameter names and types already convey.

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 clearly states the tool generates mapped drum patterns (kick/snare/hat) and explicitly notes it does not modify the FL project. This distinctively separates it from sibling composition tools like compose_melody or compose_bassline.

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 when to use this tool (when drum patterns are needed and no project changes are desired) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. No sibling differentiation is provided, so the usage guidance 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.