add_repeat_marker

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about mutation of the score, required preconditions (e.g. that the bar must exist), whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on invalid input. A list of symbols discloses no behavior at all.

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 short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: there is no lead sentence, no structure, and the fragment ends with a bare period. Nothing is front-loaded, so a reader cannot tell what the primary action is.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this definition would need to explain the required bar/beat/flow semantics and the mutation behavior. It covers only the accepted marker values, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly beyond picking a string.

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% across four parameters, and the description only supplies the value domain for one of them (value). The required integer 'bar', plus 'beat' and 'flow', remain completely unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is minimal.

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 contains no verb and no statement of what the tool does; it is only a comma-separated list of musical symbols ("segno, coda, fine..."). An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this adds a repeat marker to a score, and the description never says so 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as add_flow, add_barline, or add_rehearsal_mark. The only implicit signal is that the accepted values are notation repeat symbols, which lightly hints at the domain but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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