cassette_jamendo_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the operation validates, stores privately, is for read-only matching, requires no Client Secret, places the pasted ID in the transcript, and that a failed validation preserves existing configuration.

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 three sentences: a clear one-line purpose, a compact user-interaction requirement, and a concise failure-behavior guarantee. Every sentence adds essential information with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter setup tool, the description covers purpose, user prerequisites, privacy implications, validation behavior, and failure semantics. An output schema is available, so return-value details are not the description's responsibility. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only names 'client_id' with title 'Client Id' and no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by identifying where the Client ID comes from, that it must not be invented, and that the Client Secret must not be requested. It does not provide examples or format constraints, but for a single self-describing parameter this is adequate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Validate and privately store this machine's own Jamendo Client ID for read-only music matching.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like cassette_match_bgm or jamendo_music_matcher by framing it as credential setup rather than matching or ingestion.

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 clear usage context: call this when setting up the machine's Jamendo Client ID, and it provides step-by-step pre-call instructions including directing the user to the dev portal and warning against asking for a Client Secret. It lacks an explicit statement about when not to use it or how it relates to siblings, but the setup purpose is strongly implied.

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