copy_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one trait—that markings are not copied—but says nothing about whether a move deletes the source, what happens on overlapping or invalid destinations, permission requirements, or error behavior. For an 11-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a large gap.

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 no filler; the core action and the one caveat are both stated without repetition.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. It conveys purpose and one exclusion but omits source/destination coordinate semantics and move-versus-copy behavior that an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 explain the 11 parameters, and it explains none. It never mentions from_bar/from_pos, to_bar/to_pos, dest_bar/dest_pos/dest_beat, voice/dest_voice, flow, or move, leaving an agent unable to map the description to the schema.

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 names a specific verb pair (copy/move) and resource (notes and rests of a range) plus the destination concept (place or voice/staff), which is enough to tell it apart from delete_range and add_notes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The parenthetical '(or move)' hints that the tool has two modes, but there is no guidance on when to choose copy versus move, no prerequisites, and no statement of when this tool is preferable to alternatives like delete_range or add_notes. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and description.

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