ust_import

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait, charset handling (Shift_JIS default, overridden by a Charset= line), and implies the source is only read while a new file is written; however it says nothing about overwrite/error behavior when ustx_path exists, whether directories are created, or what a successful 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?

The English sentence is tight and front-loaded, but the full Japanese mirror doubles the length without adding information for a single-language agent, and the encoding caveat is buried mid-sentence rather than surfaced as a separate note.

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 five-parameter file-mutating conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits overwrite semantics, singer/phonemizer selection behavior, and the shape of the result. It is enough to know roughly what happens, but not enough to call it correctly on the first try.

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 five parameters, and the description names none of them by name. ust_path and ustx_path are only inferable from '.ust' and 'new .ustx', while the optional singer, phonemizer, and overwrite parameters—including the fact that overwrite defaults to false and would likely cause a failure—receive no explanation anywhere.

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 pair: convert a classic UTAU .ust into a new .ustx file, including the source encoding rule. The direction of conversion makes it clearly distinct from a hypothetical export sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly and the 'classic UTAU' qualifier is not contrasted with any other import format.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. does the OpenUtau project need to exist or be open?), and no mention of what to do if the target file already exists. The only implicit guidance is that a .ust input and .ustx output are involved.

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