render_to_dorico

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

The description adds significant behavior beyond the annotations: dry_run true is a read that dispatches nothing and does not even require Dorico to be running, while dry_run false dispatches commands. It also discloses that this path skips the preflight checks and MusicXML handling that write_score adds, and explains the different return shapes for the two modes. The annotation readOnlyHint=false is consistent because the false mode writes/dispatches.

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 tightly organized with a lead sentence, a Returns section, and a Note section. Every sentence carries information: what the tool does, how it relates to write_score, what it returns, when to prefer the sibling, and the read-like behavior of dry_run. There is no filler or repetition that wastes the agent's attention.

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 output schema is present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields. It covers what the tool does, the two usage modes, the difference from write_score, when to choose each, and the connection/dispatch implications of dry_run. This is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in both modes.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema already provides strong descriptions for both 'score' and 'dry_run'. The tool description reinforces the dry_run semantics with 'plan it without sending' and 'nothing is dispatched', but it does not add meaningful new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a ScoreSpec through the caret path, or plan it without sending.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from write_score by calling it 'the lower half of write_score' and naming the two cases that matter, so an agent can separate it from its siblings without guessing.

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 Note explicitly says to 'Prefer write_score for ordinary composition' and gives exact reasons: it runs range and voice-leading checks and can take the MusicXML path. It then says to come here 'to inspect what would be sent, or when the caret path is specifically what is wanted.' This is exemplary when/when-not guidance with a named alternative.

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