open_song

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is potentially destructive, but the description adds no context about what is destroyed (the currently open song) or the safeguard required (discard_changes). For a mutation tool that can discard unsaved work, the description should disclose this rather than relying solely on the hint.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves behavioral gaps rather than wasted words.

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 destructive, state-replacing operation with no output schema and several related sibling tools, the description omits the critical caveat about unsaved changes and the discard_changes requirement. The agent must infer the destructive consequence from annotations 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the important discard_changes semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Opens') and resource ('.ceol song file'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from create_song or import_midi by file type. However, it does not explicitly contrast with those siblings (e.g., whether opening loads a project vs. creating a new one).

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 on when to use this versus create_song, import_midi, or get_song. Critically, there is no mention that opening a song may replace the currently loaded song or that unsaved work may be lost, which is the main decision point for an agent choosing this tool.

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