Preflight Complete Song Workflow

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and idempotent; the description reinforces non-mutating behavior and adds details about repair hypotheses being deterministic and theory-only. This adds value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence summarizes capabilities, the second adds important conditional context. Information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a purpose.

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 (11 parameters, 1 required) and existence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but omits details like the required manifest_path parameter. It is sufficient but not thorough.

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 55%, and the tool description does not explain any parameters further. It relies on the schema for parameter semantics, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 lists the types of checks (structure, theory, vocal, etc.) and states it's a preflight workflow. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vocaloid_host_readiness or vocaloid_phrase_grammar, relying on the name and context to infer its role.

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 mentions that optional repair hypotheses require vocaloid_edit_song dry_run plus listening, giving some usage context. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, and does not state prerequisites or conditions for use.

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