set_duration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does little: it implies a mutation but never states what happens on invalid input, whether the change is reversible, or what the flow parameter does. The only real disclosure is the duration encoding notation, which is parameter-level rather than behavioral.

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?

One short sentence, zero waste, with the value-format hint placed inline where it is immediately useful. It is efficient, though its terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage should do considerably more. Critical gaps remain: how event_id is obtained, what flow means, and what a successful or failed call returns.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It explains the duration string format ('crotchets or w h q e s t with dots'), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about event_id (target selection) or flow, leaving two of three parameters completely undocumented.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Change') and a specific resource ('a note's or rest's duration'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings such as set_pitch, set_tempo, or set_time_signature. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or scoping the operation, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the event must already exist), and no exclusions or alternatives. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this modifies an existing event rather than adding one.

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