lc_create_song

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key failure condition (fails if song exists unless force=true) and the return value (tick range and BPM). However, it does not mention side effects like whether force overwrites write-protected files (though the schema hints at it), or any other side effects. It is informative but not exhaustive for a write operation.

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 with zero fluff. The main action and location are front-loaded, followed by the failure condition and return value. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, a key failure mode, and the return value. It does not explain that other parameters are initial settings, but the schema already does. It also doesn't mention required parameters beyond the path pattern, which implies folder and song. Overall it is adequate but leaves some context (e.g., how to populate the song afterward) to the sibling tools and schema.

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 100%, so each of the 14 parameters already has a description. The tool description adds context by explaining the file path pattern and the force behavior, but it does not elaborate on other parameters like pages, scale, or speed. Since the schema covers them fully, the baseline is 3, and the description provides marginal added value beyond that.

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 verb 'Create', the resource 'a new empty song file', and the location pattern '<music>/<folder>/<NN>.jsonl'. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a unique creation behavior (fails on existing unless force=true) and a distinct return value (tick range and BPM). This is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool – to create a new empty song – but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like lc_copy_song or lc_delete_song. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., folder must exist) or when NOT to use it. The usage context is clear from the purpose, but explicit guidance is absent.

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