live12_song_set_tuning_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and mostly falls short: it does not state whether the operation is destructive to an existing tuning, whether invalid tuning names error out, whether it is global or per-track, or whether it persists with the set. Only the mutation nature is implied by 'applies'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, the resource, and the underlying LOM path. No filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the minimum essentials (what it does, what the parameter means) are covered by the description plus schema. However, critical facts for a microtonal tuning operation—validity rules, scope, and error behavior—are absent.

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 100% and the tuning_name property already documents format expectations with concrete examples ('Werckmeister III', '19-EDO'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('loads and applies') and resource ('tuning system in Ableton Live 12, Song.tuning_system'), which tells the agent exactly what state is affected. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the nearby live12_song_set_scale sibling, which an agent could easily confuse with tuning.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus live12_song_set_scale, no precondition that the tuning name must exist in Live's tuning library, and no note about whether the change is song-wide. The agent must infer all usage context.

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