Replaces whole measures in a Flat.io part by measure number with edited MusicXML and saves the change as a new revision.
Substitui compassos inteiros de uma parte (casando pelo atributo number) e grava nova revisão. measures_xml: um ou mais ... completos, já editados. description: o que mudou (fica no histórico do Flat).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| part_id | No | ||
| score_id | Yes | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| measures_xml | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that a new revision is written, which is useful mutation context, but it never explains dry_run, whether the replacement is destructive/irreversible, or what happens to measures not mentioned in the payload.
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?
Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by short per-parameter notes. No filler, though the mixed Portuguese/English phrasing and the missing dry_run note cost a little.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, with a 5-parameter mutation tool whose schema documents nothing. An agent cannot tell whether part_id is required to scope the replacement or what dry_run returns, so the definition is not sufficient to invoke this safely.
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% for 5 parameters. The description clarifies measures_xml (complete measure elements, matched by number) and description (stored in Flat history), but leaves score_id, part_id, and especially dry_run completely undefined in both schema and description.
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 resource: replaces whole measures of a part, matching by the number attribute, and writes a new revision. This is clearly distinguishable from flat_get_measures or flat_upload_revision. It does not explicitly contrast with flat_edit_musicxml, which is the nearest sibling for XML mutation.
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?
Usage is implied by the constraint that measures_xml must contain complete <measure number="N"> elements already edited, which hints at when this tool applies. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over flat_edit_musicxml or flat_upload_revision, and no prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.