Write a FamiStudio .fms file from a song spec

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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it always writes a .fms file and returns a path plus structural summary. It does not explain overwrite behavior, but the idempotent hint and 'always writes' phrasing cover the essential side effect.

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 no wasted words. The core behavior and return value are stated first, followed by a clear use case. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter wrapper, the description gives the key facts: it writes a file, returns its path, and returns a structural summary. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the return value is especially valuable. Minor details like overwrite behavior or summary contents are absent but not critical for invocation.

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 the schema already documents the spec object and outputPath thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the title's reference to a 'song spec.' This is the appropriate baseline given the schema's completeness.

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 operation: a convenience wrapper around compile_song_spec that writes a .fms file and returns its path plus a structural summary. It distinguishes itself from the sibling compile_song_spec by emphasizing the file-writing behavior.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when the goal is a file on disk.' It also names the alternative compile_song_spec, which helps an agent distinguish the two. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it, but the conditional framing makes the intended use clear.

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