set_curve

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavior — straight-line interpolation between points, clamping of values to the curve's range, and part-relative tick coordinates — but it omits whether an existing curve is replaced or merged, whether the call is idempotent, and what happens on invalid abbr values.

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 dense sentence plus a short usage clause, front-loaded with the verb and the geometry semantics before the abbr list. The trailing Japanese sentence is a direct translation rather than new information, but it is compact and does not dilute the operational content.

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 three-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the geometry model but leaves gaps: the meaning of 'part', overwrite vs append behavior, and failure conditions. An agent can probably call it, but not confidently predict what it will destroy or return.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'points' as [tick, value] pairs in part-relative ticks and 'abbr' via the enumerated curve-type codes, but the required 'part' integer is never explained, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 definition gives a specific verb and resource ('Draw an expression curve through [tick, value] points') and enumerates the supported curve types (dyn, tenc, brec, genc, voic, pitd), which lets an agent separate it from set_note_expression or set_pitch. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like clear_curve or get_curve, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'Use for dynamics (dyn), DiffSinger tension (tenc), ...' clause gives concrete when-to-use conditions tied to curve abbreviations. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of the read/delete counterparts (get_curve, clear_curve), and no stated prerequisites such as the part needing to exist.

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