conduct_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions reporting outcomes but uses metaphorical language ('bandleader's directive', 'hands moved') that obscures whether this is a simulation or an actual mutation of the score. It does not state side effects, permissions, or reversibility, making the tool's behavior ambiguous for an AI agent.

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 with no wasted words, though it uses a metaphor that could be more direct. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it relatively concise and structured.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain return values and potential edge cases. It does mention return content (timing and hand movements) but lacks information about error conditions, required parameter combinations, or what happens with invalid directives. The description is adequate but not complete for a moderately complex tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides; it loosely refers to 'directives' and 'a piece' but does not clarify relationships between path, content, or frame. It does not compensate for any gaps, but the schema is sufficient.

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's purpose: applying a directive JSON to a piece and reporting its effects on timing. The verb 'apply' and resource 'a piece' are specific, and the description distinguishes from siblings like apply_directives by emphasizing the reporting aspect ('report what it did').

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to apply directive JSON and see its impact on ensemble timing. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide usage. A minor gap is that it doesn't tell when to prefer this over apply_directives.

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