Generar variantes MIDI limpias

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that originals are preserved ('Conserva originales') and that writes are confined to sessions/, giving the agent confidence about non-destructive behavior and output location. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false annotations.

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 sentence that immediately conveys the core safety property and build location. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex with 4 top-level parameters and a nested options object with 9 settings. The description is far too sparse to provide a complete picture: it doesn't explain what 'clean' means, how to use parameters, or what the output variants contain. It leaves major gaps for correct 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%, yet the description provides no parameter information at all. It does not explain midi_path, audio_path, output_directory, or any of the many options (bpm, profile, quantize, etc.), leaving the agent to guess their meaning and relationships.

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 states the tool 'escribe variantes auditables solamente en sessions/' (writes auditable variants only in sessions/), which clearly indicates its function of generating cleaned MIDI variants while preserving originals. This is more specific than a bare restatement, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like preview_midi_cleanup or analyze_midi.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement that it writes to sessions/ implies it is the actual writing step vs. preview, but this is only implicit and no alternatives 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.