add_live_chord_symbol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation via 'Add' but discloses nothing about connection requirements, behavior on invalid measure numbers, whether an existing chord symbol is overwritten, or what 'live score' operationally means. This is below the minimum viable disclosure for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is compact and scannable. There is zero filler — every word either states the action or adds parameter semantics. The two-part structure is ideal for an LLM-facing definition of this size.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both parameters are fully documented in the description. However, usage conditions, side effects, and operational prerequisites are entirely missing, and since annotations are absent, those gaps are not compensated elsewhere. Minimum viable for a simple 2-param tool, but with clear gaps.

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 0% — neither property has a description. The description compensates well by documenting both parameters: it adds the crucial '1-indexed' detail for measure and gives concrete format examples for symbol ('Cmaj7', 'Dm7', 'G7'). This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer/string types, though it could go further on accepted symbol syntax variations.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('chord symbol'), and a specific target ('a measure in the live score'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_live_dynamic and add_live_rehearsal_mark by resource type, but it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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, and no mention of prerequisites. Sibling connect_to_musescore and connect_to_dorico tools imply an active connection may be required before mutating 'the live score,' but the description never says so. An agent gets no decision support beyond the basic function statement.

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