Create MIDI note reactive

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing the chain structure (midiinCHOP → eventCHOP → Null CHOP), explaining the binding behavior, and warning about hardware gating. This provides meaningful behavioral insight.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and contrast with a sibling. It uses clear, structured sentences. While slightly verbose, it efficiently conveys key information 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 (creating a multi-CHOP chain), the description covers the chain architecture, source options, and note channel exposure. It lacks an explicit statement about what the tool returns (likely the created component), but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 each parameter described. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between 'synthetic' and 'device' sources, the hardware gating for device_name, and the note channel naming convention for 'notes'. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: building a MIDI note to per-note trigger/velocity chain exposing bindable channels on a Null CHOP. It distinguishes from sibling 'learn_control' by contrasting that it binds one CC versus this tool creating a full note-event chain, demonstrating specific verb and resource.

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 provides explicit guidance on using the 'source' parameter, explaining when to use 'synthetic' (preview without hardware) vs 'device' (when MIDI keyboard is connected), and notes that device path is hardware-gated and held from release. It contrasts with 'learn_control' as an alternative but does not provide a comprehensive when-not-to-use list.

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