歌詞を設定

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses how notation affects visual output (e.g., *emphasis* enlarges and brings forward, ~whisper~ shrinks), which is useful. However, it does not state whether existing lyrics are overwritten or appended, whether an open session is required, or any auth/permission needs. Core mutation semantics remain undisclosed.

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 front-loaded with the tool's action, then presents a well-organized bullet list of notation rules. Every line defines a distinct notation element or an escape rule, so the length is justified by the tool's domain-specific input format. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool whose main complexity is the custom input notation, the description is highly complete: it thoroughly documents the parameter format. However, it omits any statement about mutation behavior (replace vs. append existing lyrics) or session prerequisites. Without annotations or an output schema, that missing behavioral context keeps it from being fully complete.

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 100%, but the schema description only says 'JIZURA記法済みの歌詞テキスト' (lyrics text in JIZURA notation). The description provides an extensive notation reference defining cuts, overlays, emphasis, timestamps, escapes, and more—far beyond what the schema conveys. This is exactly the additional meaning the parameter dimension rewards.

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 clear verb and resource: '歌詞入力欄にJIZURA記法のテキストを流し込む' (pour JIZURA-notation text into the lyrics input field). This is specific enough for an agent to understand it sets lyrics, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jizura_fill, which also fills input fields. No alternative or exclusion is named.

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 provides input-preparation guidance: convert natural-language instructions (e.g., 'make the chorus emphasized') into the JIZURA notation before passing. This implies when to use the tool (when you have lyrics or instructions to render), but it never states when to choose this tool over siblings or any preconditions/exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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