set_lyrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether existing lyrics are overwritten or appended, what happens when syllable count exceeds note count, whether missing notes causes an error, or whether the change is undoable. Only the 'existing notes' constraint is surfaced.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the verbatim Japanese repetition doubles the length without adding meaning. Acceptable but not lean.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: mutation semantics (overwrite vs. append), error conditions, and two of four parameters are unexplained.

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% across four parameters. The description only implies start_index (target offset) and that text is split into lyrics; it never explains 'part' (which part index) or 'language' (default 'auto', presumably controlling syllable-splitting rules). Two of four parameters remain opaque.

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: splits text into lyrics and writes them onto existing notes starting at start_index. The 'existing notes' phrase makes the mechanism reasonably distinct, but the description never contrasts with siblings like assign_lyrics, replace_lyrics, or split_lyrics, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against the many lyric-related siblings. The only implicit cues are 'existing notes' (notes must pre-exist) and start_index (partial application), with no stated prerequisites or expected context.

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