set_song_scale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and mentions that the scale name must be 'recognised' by Live, but does not disclose side effects, validation behavior on invalid input, persistence of changes, or any error conditions. This is minimal transparency for a mutating tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, followed by usage guidance and a parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the core essentials: what it does, how to use it, and what the parameter means. However, it lacks any mention of the effect on the song (e.g., overwriting existing scale) or what happens on invalid input, which would be more complete given the absence of annotations. This is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema only provides 'scale_name' as a string with no description. The description compensates by explaining what the parameter accepts ('A scale name Live recognises') and gives concrete examples ('Major', 'Minor', 'Dorian', 'Lydian'). It also directs users to get_song_scale_names for the full list, adding value beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Set the song scale.' This is a distinct verb+resource combination that aligns with the tool name and is not ambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like set_song_root_note by framing them as complementary, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives practical guidance: 'Pair with set_song_root_note to set the key' and 'Use get_song_scale_names first to see the accepted names.' This explains the correct sequence and prerequisite, which is strong usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or discuss alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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