import_musicxml

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behaviors: the import creates a new flow rather than joining the current one, Dorico may raise a player assignment prompt that waits for a person, and later commands may sit unexecuted in the queue while that prompt is open. These details go well beyond the annotations and help an agent anticipate blocking and side effects.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, a Returns section, and a Note section. It is longer than simplest definitions, but each section earns its place by covering return fields, behavioral caveats, and alternatives. The formatting makes the extra detail easy to scan.

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?

Given the single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and the annotation set, the description covers all important contextual aspects: behavior, return shape, blocking modal risk, queue effects, and alternative tools. Nothing critical for selecting or invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, path, and the schema already provides a full description: it is a filesystem path, Dorico reads it from disk, and it must be reachable by Dorico. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, but with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Import a MusicXML file into Dorico via the Remote Control API.' It also names the underlying mechanism, 'Dispatches File.Open with MusicXMLImportFilter,' and distinguishes the tool from write_score and export_musicxml by describing what each alternative does.

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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: use write_score(method="caret") to add music into an already-open flow, use export_musicxml to produce the file, and use write_score(method="musicxml") to do both steps in one call. It also warns about the modal dialog behavior and queued commands, giving the agent a clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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