Create MIDI note reactive

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

Discloses in detail what the tool does: creates a chain of midiinCHOP to eventCHOP with ADSR envelopes to Null CHOP, and describes the output behavior with note channels. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a generative tool, and the description adds specifics beyond 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?

Description is brief (6 sentences) and efficiently structured: opens with a clear purpose, contrasts with an alternative, explains the chain, details source options, and adds a critical warning. Every sentence provides value.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains how the tool works, what it produces (Null CHOP with note channels), the two source modes, and the hardware restriction. No gaps remain for an agent to understand usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds extra context (e.g., hardware gating for device source, preview behavior for synthetic) that enhances understanding, but the schema itself already provides clear semantics.

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 tool builds a MIDI note reactive chain with per-note trigger/velocity, exposing bindable channels on a Null CHOP. It distinguishes itself from 'learn_control' which binds a single CC, making its unique purpose evident.

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 tells when to use this tool (for per-note chains vs. single CC binding), explains both source options ('synthetic' for preview, 'device' for hardware), and warns that the device path is hardware-gated and held from release, guiding appropriate usage.

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