create_song_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavior (it pulls the best installed plug-ins and wires sends/returns), but it never says whether this runs on an empty session or layers tracks onto an existing one, whether existing tracks are touched, or what happens if suitable plug-ins are missing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the concrete outcome, then the plug-in-selection behavior. Dense but every clause conveys track or routing information; only 'sensible sends' is soft filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the track list is spelled out. However, for a tool that materializes an entire multi-track session, the description omits the state preconditions and side effects an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

There is a single parameter, tempo, with a default of 78 and zero schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions tempo, its units, or that the default matches the intended style. With the schema carrying no documentation, the description had the full burden here and did not pick it up.

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 opens with a specific verb-plus-resource ('Build a ... session') and enumerates the exact tracks (Piano, Cello, Strings, Bass, Drums, Lead, Backing Vocal) plus the three return types, so an agent knows precisely what gets produced. It stops short of naming a sibling like song_starter or build_song_structure as the alternative, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

The genre/style framing ('Nir Canaan-style singer-songwriter session') implies when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. With closely related siblings such as song_starter, build_song_structure and the individual create_*_track tools present, the agent gets no guidance on which path to choose.

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