add_notes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It contributes one genuinely useful trait — the part is extended automatically rather than erroring — but says nothing about what happens to existing notes at overlapping positions, whether the operation persists to the project, or what the call returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the notable side effect, with no filler. The bilingual duplication doubles the length but is a consistent convention rather than padding.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core semantics but omits collision behavior, persistence, and return expectations. It is adequate to call the tool, not complete enough to predict its effects.

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 reported as 0% for the top-level parameters, yet the description does add real meaning: positions are relative to the part, and 'part' is the target container that may be extended. It still leaves the identifier form of 'part' and the shape of the 'notes' array to the schema, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource (add notes to a voice part) plus a scope detail (positions are part-relative). It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as ustx_add_notes or add_melody, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which adder to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The closest thing to context is 'the part grows if needed', which is behavior rather than a usage rule, leaving the choice against sibling add-tools entirely to inference.

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