insert_drum_transcription

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and covers it thoroughly: writes are conditional on dry_run, source changes and duplicates are refused, original audio/mute/tempo are preserved, and one undo reverts the insertion. These behavioral guarantees go far beyond the schema and explain what an agent can expect and what it cannot do.

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?

Five dense sentences, each carrying information: purpose, prerequisites, refusals, validation mode, non-destructive guarantees, undo. It is front-loaded with the main function and contains no filler.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete about constraints and side effects. It still leaves some gaps — the return/result format and the exact meaning of job_id/track are not stated — but the behavioral guarantees and dry_run escape hatch make it sufficient for most invocation decisions.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate; it does add meaning for dry_run ('validates without writing') and map_name ('catalog map_name'), but it never explains job_id or track, which are the two required parameters. The phrase 'original source item' hints at context but does not explicitly map parameters to their roles.

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 opening clause uses a specific verb and resource — 'Map a completed transcription to a drum kit and insert verified notes into REAPER' — and the rest of the description adds distinctive scope (verified notes, original source item, empty destination range). This differentiates it from generic insert_* siblings like insert_midi_events or insert_groove without requiring schema inspection.

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 states clear prerequisites ('Requires the original source item and an empty destination range') and explicit refusal conditions ('Refuses source changes, duplicate jobs and active transport'). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or say 'use this instead of X', so it stops short of a 5.

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