set_arrangement_loop

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

With no annotations, the description bears the transparency burden. It discloses the side-effect nature (enable/disable) and reveals an important behavioral rule: start_bar takes precedence over start_beat, and end_bar is used with start_bar to compute length. It does not cover edge cases like enabled=false combined with region parameters, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with a summary sentence, followed by a scannable parameter list. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 a five-parameter tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains all parameters and the key precedence rule, but it could better clarify the behavior when enabled=false or when both bar-based and beat-based loop definitions are used together.

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 does: every parameter gets a meaningful explanation, including units (1-based bars, beats) and precedence relationships. However, it stops short of fully specifying how end_bar and length_beats interact when both are supplied or what default 0 values mean.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Enable/disable arrangement loop and set region.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_arrangement_info or control_arrangement_view by focusing on the loop's enabled state and region boundaries.

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 purpose sentence makes the primary use case clear: call this when you need to toggle the arrangement loop or define its loop region. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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