add_live_rehearsal_mark

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It only states 'Add a rehearsal mark' without disclosing side effects (e.g., overwriting existing marks), required connections, or error handling for invalid measures.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence plus a compact Args block. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and only two parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks information on return values, edge cases (e.g., invalid measure), and behavioral details that would fully equip an agent, especially with no annotations.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: '1-indexed' for measure and examples ('A', 'B', 'Intro') for text. With 0% schema description coverage, this effectively explains both parameters, though it could further clarify constraints (e.g., allowed characters).

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 action ('Add') and resource ('rehearsal mark') with context 'in the live score'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_live_chord_symbol by specifying the type of mark, though it could be more explicit about the tool's unique role.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., add_live_chord_symbol). Missing prerequisites or conditions such as needing a connection to a score app or that the tool is for a specific measure and text.

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