convert

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

Annotations cover only the safety triad; the description adds real behavioral context: output is new tracks with addresses/devices/clips, audio_to_midi runs in the background and the call blocks up to 15 s, results depend on Live edition, and it constitutes one undo step. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey for a mutating 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the overarching purpose leads, then per-action definitions, then address/return/timeout details. Every clause carries information, though the packed parenthetical listing makes it slightly heavy to parse in one pass.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value (new tracks with addresses, devices, clips) and the background/timeout behavior for audio_to_midi. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema lacks: `address` refers to a different entity per action (clip, drum pad, or Simpler), and `type` is scoped to audio_to_midi only. That conditional mapping is genuinely useful beyond the flat enum descriptions.

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+resource (Live's audio conversions) and enumerates each action with its concrete outcome, so an agent can distinguish convert from siblings like analyze_audio_clip or clip_action. The scoping to audio clips/pads/Simplers is explicit.

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?

Each action's purpose is spelled out (check vs audio_to_midi vs simpler_track vs drum_rack_from_clip vs pad_to_track vs slice_to_drum_rack), giving clear context for selection. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or names an alternative for overlapping cases, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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