generate_drum_pattern

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true is already present, and the description explicitly states 'REPLACES the clip's notes if the clip exists,' confirming the destructive behavior. It also details the standard drum map and the effects of swing and humanize, adding transparency beyond annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses line breaks to separate key info: purpose, replacement note, parameter details, drum map reference. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers core behavior, destructiveness, style, swing, humanize, and drum map. However, it does not explicitly state whether the clip must already exist or if the tool creates it, and track_index/clip_index are not explained. These are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains style (list), swing (meaning), humanize (meaning), and references the drum map. However, it does not explain bars, seed, track_index, or clip_index. While some parameters are common, the description adds moderate value but leaves gaps.

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 writes a genre drum pattern into a Session clip on a Drum Rack track. It specifies the resource (Drum Rack track, Session clip), verb (write/generate), and lists genre styles. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_bassline or generate_chord_progression by focusing on drums and mentioning replacements.

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 lists style options and explains swing and humanize parameters, implying usage for drum pattern generation. It mentions the standard drum map, giving context for note numbers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or write_drum_grid, but the specificity provides clear guidance.

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