ustx_assign_lyrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool adds notes to a .ustx voice part, but it does not disclose whether existing notes or lyrics are overwritten, whether the file is saved, what permissions or state are required, or what happens on text/duration mismatches.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, and the bilingual repetition is the main redundancy. There is no unnecessary explanation, but the description lacks structured detail where optional parameters matter.

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 7-parameter file-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this is far too thin. It communicates the high-level action but omits parameter behavior, side effects, and expected outcomes needed to invoke it safely.

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?

The description only implicitly maps text to lyrics, part to voice part, and path to .ustx file. With 0% schema description coverage across 7 parameters, it leaves tones, durations, language, and start_tick unexplained, including their formats and effects.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: split text into lyrics and add consecutive notes to a voice part in a .ustx file. It is clear enough to distinguish this from generic note or track tools, but it does not differentiate from near-siblings such as split_lyrics, set_lyrics, replace_lyrics, or assign_lyrics.

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?

It states the operation but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or selection criteria versus alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for assigning lyrics and creating notes, with no exclusions or comparison to split_lyrics, set_lyrics, or replace_lyrics.

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