humanize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'human timing variation' but does not explain what this entails (e.g., whether it modifies existing data, requires specific inputs, has side effects, or how it interacts with other tools). This leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient phrase ('Add human timing variation') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning a high score for conciseness.

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's complexity (involving timing variation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it affects data, or its role among many sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 parameter 'amount' documented as 'Humanization amount (0-1)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or effects of different values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 human timing variation' states a purpose but is vague about what resource it acts on (e.g., musical patterns, audio, or sequences). It uses a specific verb ('Add') but lacks clarity on the target, making it less distinguishable from siblings like 'quantize' or 'generate_variation'.

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 such as 'quantize' (for timing correction) or 'generate_variation' (for broader changes). The description implies usage in timing contexts but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

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