Project Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: changing bpm keeps notes on the same beats, and earlier objectives are retained as history that propagates to derived versions via derived_from. However, it never says whether this is a partial or full update, what happens to unmentioned settings, or what permissions/preconditions apply, so coverage is partial.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the remainder is a dense run-on of parentheticals and mid-sentence line breaks that make it hard to map explanations to parameters. It is not padded, but it is not cleanly structured either.

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?

The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, which the description correctly omits. Still, for a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, leaving 6 parameters and the partial-vs-full update semantics undocumented is a real completeness gap.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain bpm, reference_stems, objective, and objective_by with genuine semantic detail (including the history/derived_from behavior). But 6 of 10 parameters (name, reference, tail_sec, offset_sec, length_bars, project) receive no explanation at all, leaving the compensation incomplete.

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 ('Change project settings') that an agent can act on, and implicitly separates it from project_info by explaining that project_info shows the current objective. It does not name project_new, so the boundary with the sibling that also creates/configures projects is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite project_new, project_info, track_set, and instrument_set being obvious neighbors. The objective explanation gives semantic context for one field but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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