set_lyrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it discloses the failure mode ('Fails if the array runs past the last note'), the undo behavior ('One undo step'), and special lyrical semantics for '-' and '+'. It does not explicitly mention overwriting behavior or permission requirements, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by mapping rules, language-specific syntax, and error/undo behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 description is complete for a moderate-complexity tool: it covers the operational flow, error condition, undo, and special lyric syntax. There is no output schema, so return values are not expected. It could mention what happens if the lyrics array is shorter than the note range, but overall it is sufficiently comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains that each lyric string maps to one note in onset order, and clarifies the special meaning of '-' and '+'. This supplements the schema's generic descriptions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Assign lyrics to consecutive existing notes' and gives the context 'the typical way to put lyrics on an existing melody' with a reference to get_notes. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_notes or open_lyrics_editor.

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 states the typical use case ('typical way to put lyrics on an existing melody') and the ordering (each array element goes to one note in onset order), which helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, though the sibling context implies the distinction.

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