cassette_match_exact_bgm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose two important behaviors: downloading is optional, and the match is registered with the session, signaling a side effect. But it does not address failure behavior, permissions, overwriting behavior, or what happens when download is disabled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information: the exact match, optional download, and session registration. It is easy to parse and appropriately sized for a high-level purpose 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?

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description must anchor correct invocation, but it omits key context: what instruction is for, what 'exact' means in matching behavior, what continue_after_match and optimization_enabled do, and what happens on no match. The output schema does not compensate for these invocation gaps.

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%, and the description only loosely maps to 'song and artist', 'download', and 'session'. It says nothing about the required instruction parameter, continue_after_match, optimization_enabled, singer, songTitle/song_title, or how title/artist are interpreted. For a 10-parameter tool, this is insufficient compensation.

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 clearly states a specific action: matching an exact song and artist, with optional download and session registration. The word 'exact' helps differentiate it from the sibling cassette_match_bgm, but the sibling is not named and the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'exact song and artist' implies this tool is for cases where a precise track is known, as opposed to cassette_match_bgm. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance for ambiguous or failed matches. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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