Import a setlist from the vault

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing that operators are created, some scenes are skipped, dry_run can avoid side effects, and what is returned. It also notes the environment prerequisite, adding value beyond the structured annotations.

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 description is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence carries operational value, but it is dense with parentheticals and long clauses. It remains appropriate for the complexity, but is slightly less crisp than the two-sentence ideal.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly mentions the return value (resolved note path and built vs skipped lists). It also covers alternative tool usage, dry_run behavior, excluded scene types, and an environment prerequisite, making it complete for a complex build tool.

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 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the frontmatter structure (tracks and scenes arrays), how recipe ids resolve against built-in/vault recipes, and clarifies dry_run's validation purpose. This is a clear value-add over the terse schema descriptions.

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 states a specific compound action: READ a setlist note and build each scene's recipe by CREATING operators under parent_path, clearly establishing the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning preset-only/cue-only scenes are skipped and directing to setlist_runner instead.

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 explicitly says preset-only and cue-only scenes are skipped and names setlist_runner as the alternative for those. It also instructs to use dry_run:true to validate without touching TD and states the prerequisite of a configured TDMCP_VAULT_PATH.

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