add_live_dynamic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the mutation ('Add') and the target, but it does not disclose whether existing dynamics are replaced, how invalid measures are handled, or whether undo is supported. It is not misleading, but it is sparse.

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 compact and structured with numbered Args. Every sentence adds information, and the parameter explanations are exactly long enough.

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 sufficient for a simple add operation, especially with an output schema present. However, given no annotations and no behavioral caveats, it leaves a few gaps around failure modes and side effects that a more complete description could cover.

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%, but the description adds meaningful parameter details: measure is 1-indexed, dynamic has a list of examples, and staff is 0-indexed with a default. This goes beyond the bare schema and helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 action ('Add a dynamic marking') on a specific resource ('a measure in the live score'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like add_live_note or add_live_rehearsal_mark.

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?

Usage is implied by the operation's nature: it is the tool to add dynamics, while siblings handle other live-score annotations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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