lc_set_song_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that settings are changed, without disclosing that write-protected songs require 'force', that shrinking page count drops the tail, or that changes are destructive/in-place. Agents are left unaware of side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and a list of affected settings. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes to the purpose.

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 annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is severely under-specified. It does not mention the required folder/song identifiers, write-protection behavior, page resizing effects, or any output/return semantics. Agents cannot safely invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 29%, most parameters are undocumented. The description lists some settings in plain English (e.g., 'loop points', 'scale') but does not clarify how they map to the actual schema fields (scaleKey, enableLoop, loopStartBar, loopEndBar), nor does it explain parameters like force, folder, song, or barsPerPage. It adds only marginal value over the schema.

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 states a clear verb ('Change') and resource ('song-level settings') and enumerates several specific settings (title, editor, speed, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like lc_create_song or lc_set_notes, which also deal with song content or creation, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lc_set_notes, lc_write_page, or lc_create_song. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., song must exist, folder/song identifiers required) or exclusions.

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