add_articulation

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It never says whether the call adds to or replaces existing articulations on an event, whether events must be selected or in an active flow, or what happens on invalid kind or unknown event_ids; only the 'on notes' fragment indicates the mutation target.

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?

It is a single terse fragment with no wasted words, but it is not front-loaded with a purpose statement and reads as a stray value list rather than a structured description. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than discipline.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is far too thin. The enumeration of articulation kinds is helpful, but the required `event_ids` targeting, the `flow` parameter, and the effect of the operation are all left unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add real value for `kind` by enumerating accepted values (staccato, staccatissimo, tenuto, accent, marcato, stress, unstress, staccato_tenuto) that the schema does not constrain with an enum, but `event_ids` and `flow` receive no explanation at all.

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 is a bare noun-phrase list of articulation kinds rather than a sentence with a verb, so the action must be inferred from the tool name. It does itemize the concrete kinds this tool deals with, which is more specific than a tautology, but it never states scope (e.g. which events, whether existing articulations are affected) or differentiates itself from siblings like add_dynamic or add_note_marking.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as selecting notes or the need for a flow, and no alternative sibling named. The trailing 'on notes' weakly implies the target entities, but that is the only usage signal present.

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