write_score

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

The description discloses that notation is parsed first and the result reports any problems, which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention overwrite semantics, permissions, or return format, leaving some transparency gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a valuable behavioral note and usage recommendation. 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parsing behavior, and usage guidance. It lacks a detailed description of the return format, but the mention of 'reports any problems' gives some indication, making it mostly 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description's mention of 'notation' and '.tap file' slightly reinforces the schema but does not add significant new meaning.

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 writes TapScript notation to a .tap file, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling write_file by explicitly saying 'use this rather than write_file for music,' which clarifies its unique 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 explicitly provides an alternative: 'use this rather than write_file for music.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the sibling tool, satisfying the highest level of usage guidance.

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