add_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully says the part is 'empty' and defines the tick unit, but it does not say whether the target track must already exist, whether the call mutates and persists project state, what happens if position or duration exceeds the track, 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the unit convention, with no filler. The bilingual duplication is deliberate and does not dilute the English content, though it makes the entry longer than strictly necessary.

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 4-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description leaves too much open. Key operational facts such as the meaning of 'track', whether a part identifier is returned, and failure conditions go unstated.

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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does so partially: it explains that position and duration are in ticks and anchors the scale at 7680 = 4 bars of 4/4. It says nothing about the required 'track' parameter (index versus id versus name) or the optional 'name' field, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add an empty voice part to a track.' The word 'empty' usefully signals that no notes are created. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling ustx_add_voice_part, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

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 only implies when the tool is used and gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With a sibling (ustx_add_voice_part) that appears to cover the same action, this omission is significant.

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