lc_copy_song

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a significant side effect ('Clears write protection') but does not specify behavior when the destination slot is already occupied (overwrite vs. error), nor does it mention any other side effects or error conditions.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the side effect immediately after, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 does not cover the return value or any output (no output schema exists), nor does it address what happens when the destination slot is already taken or how errors are reported. For a tool with six parameters and a side effect, this is incomplete; an agent might need to inspect behavior to call 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 schema already provides descriptions for 5 of 6 parameters (83% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does not explain the semantics of any parameter beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Copy a song'), the resource ('song'), and the destination ('another folder/slot'). It also adds a use case ('useful to start from an existing tune') and distinguishes itself from siblings like lc_create_song and lc_delete_song.

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 provides a clear use case ('useful to start from an existing tune'), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as lc_create_song for a blank start, leaving some inference to the agent.

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