arrangement_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the essential state change ('switch') but reveals nothing about side effects, what happens with an invalid index, whether playback is affected, or whether the action is reversible.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It earns its place but omits critical details that an agent would need, so it is not a model of efficient completeness.

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 one-parameter selection tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is not fully actionable. An agent cannot determine how to source a valid index, what the tool returns, or how to handle errors, leaving too much to inference.

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?

The schema exposes a single required integer 'index' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Switch to a different arrangement' implies the index selects which arrangement, but it never clarifies the base (0-based or 1-based), valid range, or relationship to arrangement_list.

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 uses a specific verb ('switch') and a specific resource ('arrangement'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like arrangement_current and arrangement_list because it is an action rather than a query, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus arrangement_list or arrangement_current. It does not mention that a valid index might come from arrangement_list, nor does it state any prerequisites or context for switching arrangements.

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