insert_midi_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the created item is empty and that an item index is returned, but it omits side effects (does it select the item?), failure conditions for an invalid track_index, and any permission/precondition requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and span, followed by the return value. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, span, and return type, but leaves the meaning of track_index, selection side effects, and error behavior undefined — gaps that matter given 0% schema coverage and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that start_sec/end_sec define a span (a range, not two independent points), which adds meaning, but track_index is never explained — is it an index into list_tracks output? — leaving one of three parameters semantically undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Insert an empty MIDI item on a track') plus the time span, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like insert_midi_notes or create_chord_progression. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the 'empty' qualifier makes the distinction clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this should precede insert_midi_notes, whether the track must already exist, or what to do if the item already exists.

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