Edit Canonical Song

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

Annotations all false, so description carries the burden. It discloses dry_run behavior (returns hashes, diffs, etc. without writing), adding useful context. However, it does not describe what happens on actual write (e.g., persistence, reversibility, side effects), leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be restructured to separate the dry_run description from the primary purpose for better readability. No wasted words, but slightly dense.

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 complexity (18 actions, nested payload, many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It lacks information on output behavior for non-dry-run calls, error scenarios, prerequisites, and relationship to sibling tools. Even with an output schema, the description should provide more context for seamless invocation.

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 coverage is low (33%). The description adds no detail about the 'action' or 'payload' parameters beyond referencing an external contract. The 'response_format' parameter is not mentioned. The agent would need external documentation to understand the payload structure, and the description does not compensate for the sparse schema.

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 the tool applies a strict action payload from a specific contract, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on editing versus inspection or rendering. However, it relies on an external resource (vocaloid://edit-song-contract) for full clarity, which slightly reduces self-contained clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., preflight, inspect). The description does not provide criteria for choosing this tool over siblings or mention when not to use it. The dry_run behavior is implied but not explained as a conditional usage pattern.

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