add_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies that text is attached to a voice at a position, but it does not describe mutation side effects, defaults, required permissions, reversibility, or what is returned.

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?

The definition is a single concise sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the fragment structure leaves important parameter and behavioral details unstated.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this is insufficient. It identifies the core idea and examples of text, but an agent would still lack the information needed to invoke the tool correctly across bar, pos, beat, and flow.

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 should compensate for six undocumented parameters. It gives examples for text and says the text is attached to a voice, but it leaves bar, pos, beat, and flow effectively unexplained, and its phrase "at a position" does not map clearly to those parameters.

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 identifies a specific resource, staff text attached to a voice, and gives examples like "dolce" and "espress." This is clear enough to distinguish it from tools such as add_dynamic or add_articulation, though it is phrased as a noun rather than an explicit add action and does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 tool instead of related tools such as add_dynamic or add_rehearsal_mark, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The examples imply that this is for expression or tempo-style text, but the agent must infer that use case.

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