preview_syllables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the notation conventions (space-separated notes, '+' to continue a word, '(xN)' for held notes), but 'preview'/'show' only implicitly conveys that this is a non-mutating inspection step — no explicit statement that nothing is written.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before the notation details. Every clause carries information; the only minor nit is that the notation rules describe output rather than the tool's own behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be re-explained, and the notation gloss helps interpret it. However, with no annotations and fully undocumented parameters, an agent still lacks guidance on lyric_mode and on confirming this call has no side effects.

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%, so the schema itself explains neither the required 'lyrics' string nor the 'lyric_mode' option (which has a default of 'auto' but unknown accepted values). The description explains output notation but adds nothing about what these parameters mean or how lyric_mode changes behavior.

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 concrete verb and resource: it shows how each lyric line will be split into notes, and frames the operation as happening 'before making a song'. This clearly separates it from create_song, but it never names or contrasts with the closer sibling lyrics_to_ust, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 phrase 'before making a song' implies the intended workflow slot (a preview step preceding creation), which is useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like lyrics_to_ust or render_backing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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