set_song_musical_context

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'guarded' and 'Plan or apply', which hints at a two-phase process, but doesn't explain the requirement for a confirmationToken, expectedStateVersion, or that applying mutates song state. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. It efficiently lists the musical aspects, though it could benefit from a more structured breakdown of the guarded workflow.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, and a plan/apply pattern, the description is critically incomplete. It omits the dry-run-to-planHash-to-confirmationToken flow, the need for expectedStateVersion, and what a plan contains (no output schema). An agent cannot infer correct usage without deeper schema analysis.

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 only 44%, and the description fails to compensate. It does not explain the dryRun/planHash/confirmationToken interplay, the purpose of expectedStateVersion, or the meaning of unlabeled fields like timeSignature and key.rootNote. The description simply lists high-level categories without mapping to any parameters.

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 ('set') and resource ('song musical context'), enumerating specific categories (key, scale, timing, quantization, groove, swing, loop). It distinguishes from the read-only sibling get_song_musical_context and implies a planning/apply mode, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the more specialized set_groove or set_tempo tools.

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 given on when to choose this tool over siblings like set_groove, set_tempo, or apply_midi_* tools. It doesn't mention that single-aspect changes might be better served by dedicated setters, or that this tool is suited for multi-aspect guarded changes. The 'Plan or apply' phrasing hints at a workflow but offers no selection criteria.

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