set_scale

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a mutation of song scale and mentions the Live 12+ requirement, but it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if both parameters are null, or whether invalid scale names cause errors. This is a significant gap for a setter with no annotation safety profile.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a clearly formatted Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and parameter meanings, and an output schema exists (not shown), so return values are not required. However, there are gaps: it does not explain the behavior when both arguments are null, whether scale_name is validated, or how the operation interacts with existing scale settings. These ambiguities make it incomplete for a fully unambiguous 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?

The description provides detailed semantics for both parameters, including the MIDI note mapping for root_note and concrete examples for scale_name. Since the schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), this is essential and well done. It could be improved by listing valid scale names or noting defaults, but it covers the main meaning effectively.

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 the tool sets the song scale root note and/or scale name, which is a specific action on a specific resource. The '(Live 12+)' qualifier adds important version context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with tracks, scenes, or clips, none of which address song scale.

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 makes the intended use clear: to modify the song scale. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the resource scope ('song scale') is unambiguous and no sibling tool directly overlaps. The version note also implicitly guides when the tool can be used (Live 12+).

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