Instrument Set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does deliver substantive mutation semantics: merge=True deep-merges keys while replacing the oscs list whole, merge=False replaces outright. It still omits side effects like undo coverage, failure modes for bad presets, and whether the change 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?

Roughly two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the merge distinction. The awkward mid-sentence line break and the un-explained parenthetical about oscs cost it a point, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the merge behavior is the key unknown the description resolves. For a mutation tool with zero annotations it should still say more about permissions, error behavior, or reversibility to be fully self-sufficient.

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 description does compensate partially by explaining merge (default behavior and its two modes) and the 'preset:<name>' form of instrument. It says nothing about project or track, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 specific verb and resource ('Set a track's instrument'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like instrument_show, instrument_help, and instrument_fit. It lacks any explicit reference to those siblings, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as instrument_show for inspection. The merge semantics explain how the call behaves but not when an agent should reach for this tool.

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