stack_chop_layers

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses key behaviors: clones at same position on same track, simultaneous playback, use of take_set_pitch, and risk of overlapping items. It does not mention undo or performance beyond crowding, but is transparent enough for an AI agent.

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 with a clear two-sentence introduction, then a usage note, then parameter definitions. No wasted words, 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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameter details, and usage advice completely. It is self-contained and informative for an AI agent.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully explains both parameters: item_indices as JSON array up to 50, intervals_semitones as pitch shifts with default and unison example. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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: creating overlay copies at pitch intervals for each chop, specifically for a classic future bass harmonized stack. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing a unique multi-voice cluster operation not provided by other item/take tools.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use (subset of chops) and why not all (mixer crowding). It also mentions how to achieve unison-only with empty array. No explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context is clear.

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