remove_instrument

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that the deletion cascades to all of the instrument's music, that the operation is a single reversible undo step, and that Dorico's confirmation dialog is answered automatically. Only the return value and any permission constraints are left unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its blast radius, then the reversibility note, then the id source. The dialog-handling sentence reads slightly as an implementation note but does convey behavior the agent would otherwise not know.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important ground: what is destroyed, that it is undoable, and where the id comes from. It does not say what the call returns or whether it fails on an invalid id, leaving a modest gap.

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% for the single instrument_id parameter, so the schema says nothing about it. The description compensates by naming the exact source tool for valid ids (get_score_overview players), which is the practical detail an agent needs to supply the value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove an instrument') and immediately states the scope of the effect ('and all its music'), which is enough to distinguish it from add_instrument or delete_flow without opening the schema.

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?

It tells the agent where the required id comes from ('Instrument ids are in get_score_overview players') and offers undo as the recovery path, giving clear operating context. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a named alternative for less drastic removal, so it is not quite a 5.

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