add_swing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add swing to pattern' implies a mutation operation that modifies an existing pattern, but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects playback, or has side effects like altering timing or feel. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately about behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Add swing to pattern', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity of a musical tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'swing' entails, how it modifies the pattern, what the result looks like, or how it differs from other rhythm-related tools. For a mutation tool in a rich musical context, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'amount' parameter clearly documented as 'Swing amount (0-1)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what values like 0.5 represent musically or how swing interacts with the pattern. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Add swing to pattern' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'add_swing' with minimal additional information. It specifies the action ('add') and target ('pattern') but lacks specificity about what 'swing' means in this musical context or how it differs from similar tools like 'humanize' or 'quantize' among the many siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like 'humanize', 'quantize', and 'generate_euclidean' that might relate to rhythm manipulation, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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