audio_melody_to_piano_roll

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

The description discloses core behaviors (monophonic default, polyphonic option needing extra library, BPM and key snapping). However, it does not mention the clear_first parameter (which defaults to true) or the effect of transpose_semitones and min_confidence. No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden but is incomplete.

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 relatively concise at 3 sentences, but it could be better structured by separating behavior from parameter guidance. It front-loads the main action and then lists parameter behaviors, which is reasonable.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It covers key behaviors but omits several parameters, does not explain the return value (state of piano roll after execution), and assumes knowledge of internal libraries (pyin, Basic Pitch). A more comprehensive description would describe all parameters and expected outcomes.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 4 of 7 parameters (path, bpm, snap_to_detected_key, polyphonic). It omits explanations for transpose_semitones, min_confidence, and clear_first, leaving gaps that the agent must infer from parameter names and defaults.

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 tool extracts notes from audio and pushes them into the FL piano roll. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the default monophonic extraction (pyin) and optional polyphonic transcription, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 explains default vs. polyphonic modes and the effects of bpm and snap_to_detected_key, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like voice_notes_to_piano_roll or piano_roll_add_notes. No when-not-to-use advice is given.

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