piano_roll_transpose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not state whether the operation modifies in place, is undoable, has side effects, or what happens with out-of-range semitone values. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 (one sentence, 6 words) and front-loaded with the essential action. While efficient, it sacrifices necessary detail; however, for a simple operation, this level of conciseness is borderline acceptable.

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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, scope (e.g., active pattern or channel), and operational semantics. A more complete description would at minimum list the parameters and their effects.

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%. The description explains the 'semitones' parameter only. The 'channel' and 'pattern' parameters are not mentioned at all, leaving their purpose unclear. The description adds some value for the required parameter but fails to compensate for the undocumented optional parameters.

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 ('shift every note') and the parameter ('N semitones'), distinguishing it from siblings like add, delete, quantize, etc. The verb 'shift' combined with 'piano_roll_transpose' name makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives like piano_roll_humanize, piano_roll_quantize, or manual note editing. An agent would not know if transpose is preferred for pitch shifts over other tools.

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