open_lyrics_editor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that this is an interactive browser page, that changes are not applied yet ('BEFORE they are applied'), and that the user must confirm submission. It does not cover edge cases like cancellation or page load failures, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 three sentences long and every sentence contributes: what it does, how the editor works, and what to do after. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but well structured and free of fluff.

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 interactive complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: when to open, what the editor shows, and the follow-up calls. It doesn't explain what the tool returns or what happens on failure, but the workflow is otherwise complete and actionable.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds the critical format example ('fixing あし た to あ した') and explains the live count constraint, giving meaning to noteCount and syllables beyond their schema descriptions. This elevates it above a baseline 3.

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 the tool opens a local browser page for reviewing and adjusting lyric syllable boundaries, with a concrete example. It is distinct from siblings like get_lyrics_editor_result and set_lyrics by explicitly positioning itself as the pre-application review step.

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?

It provides explicit workflow guidance: use before applying readings, and after user submission call get_lyrics_editor_result and set_lyrics. This tells the agent exactly when and how to chain this tool with others, which is better than simply describing the tool in isolation.

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