add_dynamic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the whole call is 'One undo step' and it 'returns only the dynamics created'. It omits failure behavior, what happens with an invalid bar/pos, and whether partial batches roll back, which matters for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then placement nuance, then batching, then transactional/return behavior. The telegraphic 'voices: the same on several instruments' style is slightly clipped but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers placement semantics, batching syntax, undo atomicity, and return scope. The remaining gaps (flow parameter meaning, error handling) are modest rather than structural.

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 0% across 8 parameters, yet the description explains most of them: the dynamic values (with an enumerated example list), voice, voices, at (with a concrete JSON example and the rule that each entry takes bar+beat or pos), and bar/beat/pos placement. Only 'flow' is left entirely undefined, which is a real but limited gap.

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+resource ('An immediate dynamic ... on the voice's instrument at a position') and clarifies a non-obvious capability: it can be placed where no note starts, inside a held note, or at a hairpin end. It implicitly separates itself from hairpin/gradual-dynamic tools by stressing 'immediate', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader learns dynamics can go inside held notes and at hairpin ends, and that 'at' batches several dynamics in one call. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. add_hairpin for gradual changes), so the agent must infer routing.

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