N小節ごとに改段

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that existing breaks and nobreak marks inside the range are removed first, that page breaks and section breaks survive and are returned in keptBreaks, and that lock requires MuseScore 4.6+. That is precisely the destructive side-effect and version-permission information an agent needs before calling 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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the heavy parentheticals on method semantics, break removal, and numbering all carry real information. It is dense and nested rather than wasteful, but the numbering caveat could be split out for readability.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers method semantics, side effects, keptBreaks as a return field, and how to verify measure indices via layout_inspect. It omits whether an undo point is created and any precondition that the score must be open, which score_undo/score_open siblings imply but never state.

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 coverage is only 60% — 'every' and 'method' have no schema descriptions — but the description compensates fully, defining 'every' as measures per system and spelling out both enum values of 'method' with their behavioral differences and the 'lock' default. It also clarifies the 1-based sequential measure numbering and the pickup/skipped-measure offset, which the schema does not.

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 specific verb+resource: it converts a measure range into systems of N measures, with a default of the whole score. It clearly differs in intent from layout_set_break (single break insertion) and layout_fit_pages, though it never names those siblings to route the agent explicitly.

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 explains the two methods and their trade-offs — lock keeps exactly N measures per system even when the width is short (MuseScore 4.6+), whereas breaks may let MuseScore break earlier. Defaults are given for range and method, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this bulk tool over layout_set_break or layout_fit_pages.

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