piano_roll_add_arpeggio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not explain side effects (e.g., whether it adds to or replaces existing notes), required permissions, or scope of changes. It only states it arpeggiates a chord, which is too vague for a mutation tool.

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 (one sentence) but lacks structural elements like front-loading key information. While not verbose, it omits essential details that would make it more helpful.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to mention prerequisites (e.g., active pattern), return behavior, or any operational context, making it inadequate for proper invocation.

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% and the description adds no parameter details. With 9 parameters (including enums like direction and defaults), the description fails to explain any parameter's meaning or effect, leaving the agent unable to use 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 'Arpeggiate a chord into sequential notes' clearly states the verb (arpeggiate) and resource (a chord). It distinguishes from siblings like piano_roll_add_chord (adds chord simultaneously) and piano_roll_add_notes (adds arbitrary notes).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gen_emit_arpeggio, piano_roll_humanize, or piano_roll_quantize. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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