Create MIDI controller map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: hardware-gated scaffold, best-effort CC/note maps, need for validation, and that the tool is held from release. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single well-formed paragraph that front-loads the main purpose. While clear and compact, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of key aspects (e.g., steps, caveats). But it earns its sentences without redundancy.

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 (5 params, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: what is created, supported devices, auto-binding vs explicit, hardware validation warnings, and an alternative tool. No gaps remain for an agent to infer.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the overall workflow (preset auto-binding, explicit overrides) and hardware validation context, which enriches understanding beyond schema definitions.

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 purpose: 'Build a MIDI controller preset for a supported device', specifying what it creates (midiinCHOP + bind Table DAT) and optional auto-binding. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'learn_control' tool, which is for one-at-a-time MIDI learn.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for creating presets for supported devices. Also provides when-not: 'For one-at-a-time MIDI learn of a single control, use learn_control instead.' Includes caveats about hardware validation and tool status.

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