List revisions of a song

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value beyond that by specifying ordering, verifying behavior against the live API, and clarifying that every save creates a revision. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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?

Two compact sentences with no fluff. The key scoping detail ('revision history', 'oldest first') is front-loaded, and the contextual note about BandLab's version model is placed after the main statement.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers the essential semantics: what it lists, ordering, and why the revision history exists. A minor gap is the absence of output-format details, but no output schema exists and the title/description imply a revision list.

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 only 50%: songId is documented in the schema, but limit has no description beyond name/constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and a precise resource ('revision history of a song'), and adds a behavioral detail ('oldest first'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like bandlab_list_songs and bandlab_get_mix.

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 clearly frames when this tool is relevant by explaining that BandLab saves are revisions and calling this the 'undo history.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the use case is evident and no conflicting alternative exists among the siblings.

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