shape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that all dimensions auto-play by default and mentions optional intensity with a default of 0.5. However, it does not explicitly state whether the shape operation is non-destructive or what the return value is, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main action and then details each dimension. All sentences are informative, but it could be slightly more concise by grouping the dimension descriptions more tightly. Still, it is well-structured and avoids redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well, including usage context and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details on the return value or confirmation of success/failure, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's effect.

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% with all parameters described. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of each dimension, providing the example with target_mood and intensity, clarifying default values (intensity 0.5, auto_play true), and listing valid options for each dimension. This greatly aids parameter selection.

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's purpose: 'Shape the current pattern along one of three high-level dimensions.' It lists the three dimensions (mood, energy, refine) with specific examples and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing users to 'transform' for raw transforms and 'effect' for explicit effects.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each dimension (mood, energy, refine) with their respective parameters. It also tells users when not to use this tool, directing them to 'transform' for raw operations and 'effect' for effects. An example usage is included, making the expected call pattern clear.

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