ass_karaoke_set_kind

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the whole behavioral burden, and it does disclose the blast radius well: 'Durations, text and every other override tag are untouched', plus it reveals the mutation returns per-line diff data. It stops short of stating persistence/in-place-edit and undo semantics, which would matter for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the filter semantics, then the non-effects, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place; the return-value enumeration is dense but justified given there is no output schema.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it explains what changes, what doesn't, and the exact return keys. The remaining gap is the undefined `selection`/`doc_id` targeting model, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does excellent work on two of four params: `kind` is enumerated, and `only_matching` gets a concrete example ('only `k` -> `kf`'). But the required `selection` parameter and `doc_id` receive no explanation at all, leaving the most important targeting argument undocumented.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Convert karaoke tags to another kind') and enumerates the valid target kinds (`k`, `kf`, `ko`, `kt`). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings such as ass_convert_tags, ass_set_tag, or the other ass_karaoke_* tools that retime or remove tags.

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?

Usage is implied — you call this to change an existing karaoke syllable's kind — and the `only_matching` explanation describes a filtering mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over ass_convert_tags or ass_set_tag, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g. must a document be selected/opened, and via doc_id or selection).

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