ustx_add_melody

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the melody is appended or overwrites existing notes, whether the file is saved or held in memory, whether the project must already be open, nor any format constraints on the melody string. It only restates the name in two languages.

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 text is short but wastes half its length on a Japanese duplicate of the English sentence, adding no new information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 six-parameter mutating file operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain the melody format, tick semantics, and the effect on the target file. None of that is present, so the definition is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 six parameters, including non-obvious ones such as 'melody' (string format unknown), 'language' (default 'auto' — which languages?), and 'start_tick' (units/meaning). The description supplies no semantics for any of them, leaving three required and three optional parameters entirely 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?

The description identifies the action (add_melody) and the resource (.ustx file), which does let an agent distinguish it from the sibling 'add_melody' that presumably targets another format. However, it never explains what 'melody' means as a payload (notes? a notation string?) or what the tool does to the file beyond the name restated. Purpose is discernible only by inference from the tool name.

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 prerequisites, and no named alternative (the plain 'add_melody' is only implied by the phrase '.ustx file version of'). An agent must guess that this variant applies to .ustx projects versus other formats.

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