set_note_attributes

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 indicates a mutation but does not reveal whether the operation replaces or merges existing attributes, whether per-phoneme changes are persistent, what dry_run does, or whether the operation is destructive. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, the brevity omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral caveats, so it reads as under-specified rather than excellently concise.

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?

This is a complex 9-parameter tool with a nested attributes object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain most parameters, the relationship between note attributes and per-phoneme attributes, or the role of trackIndex/groupIndex. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation from this definition alone.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It adds the per-phoneme shape ({ leftOffset, position, activity, strength }), yet no parameter named 'phonemes' exists in the input schema, and it leaves detune, rapAccent, musicalType, languageOverride, groupIndex, and trackIndex unexplained. The added meaning is partial and not clearly mapped to the schema.

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 states a clear action ('Set') and identifies the resource as note attributes and per-phoneme attributes, including the expected per-phoneme item shape. It is specific enough to distinguish the core operation from read-only sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from set_phonemes or update_notes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_phonemes, update_notes, or get_note_attributes. It does not mention prerequisites, how trackIndex/groupIndex affect the target, or what dry_run is for. The description only states the action without usage context.

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