apply_directives

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return structure (directives as read, before/after arrangement, sixteen features per bar) and indicates a data-only result. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is side-effect-free or if it mutates the session, which would be valuable for a tool named 'apply'.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the output summary and a clear cross-reference. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return value and distinguishes the primary use case. It could benefit from clarifying the interaction of the 'features' flag with the described 'sixteen features per bar' and the exact relationship among path, content, and session, though the schema handles some of this.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema; it reinforces that directives are applied to a piece or session, but the schema already explains each parameter. No extra parameter-level guidance is provided.

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 the tool applies a bandleader's directive JSON to a piece or ensemble session and returns structured result data. It names the specific verb, resource, and return format, and distinguishes from conduct_score by contrasting its prose output.

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?

Explicitly directs users to conduct_score when they want a timing report in prose, providing a clear alternative. The description also implies when to use apply_directives (for data-formatted results) and mentions both 'piece' and 'ensemble session' contexts.

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