add_articulation

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it replaces existing articulations, handles multiple selections, or requires specific selection types. The 'Returns: Success status' is vague and does not specify the format or error conditions.

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 with a clear first sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. However, the Args section could be integrated into a more natural prose to improve readability.

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?

With an output schema present, the minimal return description ('Success status') is acceptable. However, the tool has one parameter and no complex behavior, so the description is nearly complete but lacks information on error cases or edge cases like no selection.

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 description compensates for the schema's lack of enum values by listing possible articulation types (staccato, accent, tenuto, etc.). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's generic string type.

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 clearly states the action ('add') and resource ('articulation'), and the phrase 'to the current selection' specifies the target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_dynamics and add_notes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention prerequisites like having a selection or any context where this tool would be inappropriate.

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