set_follow_song

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what Follow Song mode does ('auto-scroll to follow playhead'), which adds meaningful context beyond the tool name. It clearly indicates the effect of the boolean parameter. While it doesn't mention side effects or return values, for a simple setter this is sufficient and does not contradict any structured data.

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 description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose plus a one-line argument explanation. It is front-loaded with the core function, includes the necessary parameter detail, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with a single boolean parameter and no complex output requirements, the description is complete. It explains what Follow Song mode is, what the parameter does, and does not need to elaborate on return values since an output schema is indicated. The simplicity of the tool aligns with the brevity of the description.

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%, but the description explicitly explains the only parameter: 'enabled: True to enable, False to disable.' This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the raw schema, which just defines the type as boolean. The description fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Enable or disable Follow Song mode' with a parenthetical explanation of what that mode does ('auto-scroll to follow playhead'). This is a specific verb (enable/disable) plus a resource (Follow Song mode), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever you want to control Follow Song mode. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, but given there is no sibling tool that manipulates Follow Song, and the tool is a simple boolean setter, the absence of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is not a significant gap. The usage is effectively self-evident.

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