apply_recipe

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it adds new tracks, does not overwrite existing ones, and attempts to load instruments. The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with adding tracks being a permanent change.

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 concise, front-loaded with the key action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers input, behavior, side effects, and relationship to list_recipes. An output schema exists, so return details are not needed. It is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining `name` is a recipe from list_recipes, giving examples, and stating tempo/key/scale/bars override defaults. This adds significant meaning.

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 scaffolds a genre starter, listing specific actions: set tempo, add Drums/Bass/Chords MIDI tracks, load instruments, write parts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_bassline by being a one-call composite.

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 explains when to use the tool (for quick genre template) and mentions `name` comes from list_recipes. It also notes it adds tracks without overwriting, providing context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools.

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