delete_midi_notes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by naming two behavioral guards: a required model fingerprint (concurrency/consistency check) and an explicit delete-intent confirmation, plus the atomic 'one diff' semantics. It omits other important behavior such as dry-run support and the per-call note cap, keeping it at a 3.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The compactness is slightly bought at the cost of clarity, since 'guarded' and 'one diff' are unexplained, but nothing is redundant.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with an output schema, a dry-run flag, a revision guard, and a 10,000-item batch limit; the description mentions only the fingerprint and confirm gates. An agent could still call it incorrectly by omitting expected_revision or not knowing dry_run exists.

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% across seven nested properties, so the description must carry the load. It only touches model_fingerprint and alludes to confirm_delete via 'explicit delete intent', leaving dry_run, expected_revision, note_refs, and the id formats entirely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Remove ... notes') and scopes the operation ('in one diff'), which separates it from edit_midi_notes and insert_midi_notes. However, 'guarded notes' and 'one diff' are internal jargon that an agent must guess at, so the purpose is clear in outline but imprecise in mechanics.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over edit_midi_notes or delete_region, nor any precondition beyond 'explicit delete intent required'. The agent must infer that this is the batch-delete counterpart to the single-note editors from the name alone.

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