edit_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it creates a new empty edit, replaces the in-memory Edit, and does not write to disk until edit_save or flush. This clearly communicates the non-destructive-to-disk nature and the in-memory replacement, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 core purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: first states what it creates, second states the persistence behavior. No wasted words.

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 tool with 7 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters beyond a general mention, nor does it specify return values (though no output schema exists). It gives enough to understand the action but not enough to confidently set parameters without additional inference.

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 coverage is only 14% (only key_root has a description). The description mentions 'tempo, time signature, and key' but does not map these to specific parameter names or explain defaults, ranges, or formats for the other six parameters. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new empty Edit (song)' and lists what it sets (tempo, time signature, key). It distinguishes from siblings like edit_open and edit_save by emphasizing 'new empty' and the non-persistence behavior.

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 usage (create a new edit) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The phrase 'Replaces the in-memory Edit' hints at a destructive side effect but does not guide the agent to choose this over edit_open or edit_save. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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