lyrics_to_ust

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait — a file is written and no backing audio is produced — but says nothing about where the file lands, whether existing files are overwritten, or what permissions/paths are required for a write operation with 13 parameters.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the output artifact and followed by the argument cross-reference. Nothing is padded or repeated, and the scope constraint leads.

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 13-parameter file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. It never explains the parameters, the output location, or how the generated melody relates to the supplied chords and lyrics, leaving major gaps an agent would need filled.

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 0% across 13 parameters, so the schema documents names and defaults only, with no meaning for key, lyric_mode, voice_range, bars_per_line, or the rest. The description offers no per-parameter semantics and only delegates via 'same as create_song', which leaves the agent dependent on a sibling's definition.

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 and artifact: write only the UTAU .ust file, melody fitted to chords. The phrase 'no backing' distinguishes it from the sibling render_backing, so the agent can separate it from at least one alternative. It stops short of explaining what a .ust file is or how this differs from create_song beyond the missing backing.

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 backing' and 'Arguments are the same as create_song' imply this is the UST-only variant of create_song, which is usable routing information. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no prerequisite on voice_dir or output_dir, and no guidance on choosing this over create_song.

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