set_score_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, side effects on existing layout, or whether the change is reversible. The single useful behavioral detail is that valid identifiers come from a library collection enumerated via list_library.

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 very short with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment lacking a subject and verb, so the reader never gets the front-loaded action statement. Size is appropriate; structure is not.

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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves out what the operation changes and how it reports success. The value enumeration pointer helps, but an agent still cannot predict the effect of the call.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'order' string parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate; it does so partially by giving three example dotted identifiers and naming the library collection to enumerate valid values. It still omits the general format rule and whether arbitrary strings are rejected.

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 is a noun fragment ('Instrument order template, e.g. ...') rather than a verb+resource statement; the action is only inferable from the tool name set_score_order. It does supply concrete example values, but it never says what setting the order actually does to the score.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling set_* and add_* tools. The only procedural hint is a pointer to list_library with the kInstrumentScoreOrderCollection constant for discovering valid values, which is value guidance rather than usage guidance.

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