set_phonemes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the mutation behavior, the reset capability, and the one undo step, which is valuable. It doesn't cover potential errors or permissions, but for this domain it adequately describes what happens.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main action, and includes essential details (examples and reset behavior) in three sentences. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the note addressing, phoneme format, reset behavior, and undo step. It could mention error conditions or constraints on valid phonemes, but the provided information is sufficient for most use cases.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful examples of phoneme formatting (Japanese/English) and the empty string reset semantics, which goes beyond the schema. Thus a 4 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 states a specific verb ('Override') and resource ('phonemes of specific notes'), with the indexing method ('by onset-order index from get_notes') clearly defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_phonemes' and 'set_lyrics' by focusing on phoneme overrides.

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 clear context for use: it explains how to specify notes (via get_notes index) and the default group behavior, and mentions empty string to reset. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like set_lyrics, so it falls short of a 5.

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