set_song

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), which is standard. The description adds two useful behavioral points: all changes happen in one undo step, and the return value reports Live's current settings. It doesn't explain partial-update semantics or missing-field behavior, limiting full marks.

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?

Dense but well-structured: the first sentence leads with the core action and undo/read behavior, followed by a parameter guide and a concrete example. The parameter list is long but skimmable; a few less common parameters could have been grouped without losing clarity.

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 broad 23-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the main parameters with ranges and examples. It is nearly complete, but the omission of 11 parameters and lack of guidance on interaction between settings (e.g., loop vs loop_start vs loop_length) leaves an agent guessing on those.

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% and only 12 of 23 parameters are named. For those named, the description provides valuable semantics: BPM range, root+scale format, swing range, loop_length syntax ('8 bars'), and quantization values. It fails to mention 11 parameters (link, loop, punch_in, punch_out, metronome, scale_mode, session_record, tempo_follower, arrangement_overdub, session_automation_record), so the compensation is incomplete.

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 specific verb and resource ('Set song-wide settings') and clarifies scope unambiguously via 'song-wide settings', which distinguishes it from track, mixer, and clip setters in the sibling list. It also notes it returns every setting, orienting the agent.

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 implies when to use it (to change song-wide settings) and provides a no-arg read mode, but it never names alternatives such as get_song_overview for reading or set_clip for clip-level timing. The usage context is there, but the exclusions/alternatives are missing.

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