refine

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

The description discloses the auto-play behavior after refinement, which is important for the agent to know. However, it does not mention if the changes are reversible, require specific permissions, or affect undo history. Given no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists supported commands and auto-play. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and a behavioral trait (auto-play). It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but these are not expected for such a tool. Minor gap: it assumes 'current pattern' is understood without definition.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds value by mapping each directional command to the underlying parameter (e.g., 'faster/slower (tempo)'). This clarifies how to achieve specific refinements, going beyond the schema's enum-like description.

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 it incrementally refines the current pattern with simple directional commands, listing specific parameters (tempo, gain, filter cutoff, reverb). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect or generate_bassline, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_effect for adding new effects or set_tempo for direct tempo control. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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