ustx_add_voice_part

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says the tool adds a part. It does not say whether the file is modified in place or saved, whether the target track must exist, what happens on an invalid path, or whether the change is reversible. 'Empty' is the sole behavioral detail, ruling out note creation.

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 definition is a single short sentence front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The Japanese mirror is duplication in terms of raw length but serves localization rather than adding noise.

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?

This is a file-mutating tool with five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, and the description addresses none of those gaps. An agent would not know the units for duration/position, the precondition that the track exists, or what the tool returns after the mutation.

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, so the description must compensate and does not. Nothing explains what name, track, duration, or position mean, nor what units duration (default 7680) and position are measured in — ticks, beats, or milliseconds — which is a critical ambiguity for a music-timing tool.

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 .ustx file', which tells the agent exactly what object is created and in what file format. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as add_part, ustx_add_track, or ustx_add_melody, so the agent must infer that a 'voice part' is a distinct entity from a track or a melody.

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 guidance at all: nothing says whether the target .ustx file must already exist, whether a track must be created first, or when to prefer add_part over ustx_add_voice_part. The only implicit signal is the word 'empty', which hints that notes are not included, but that is left for the agent to deduce.

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