remove_notes_in_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation is 'surgical' and describes parameters, but does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens if the window is empty. A score of 3 reflects adequate but limited behavioral context.

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 concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundant wording. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema (not required to explain return values), the description covers the essential inputs and purpose. It could benefit from noting index base (0-based) or edge cases, but it is largely complete for this filtering operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by listing all six parameters with explanations of their roles and defaults (e.g., 'from_pitch: lowest MIDI pitch to remove', 'time_span: window length in beats (-1 = to end of clip)'). This goes beyond the schema titles and defaults.

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: 'surgically remove notes inside a pitch/time window of a MIDI clip, keeping everything else'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clear_clip_notes, providing a clear differentiation.

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 includes a direct contrast to clear_clip_notes ('unlike clear_clip_notes which wipes all'), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool for targeted removal rather than full clearing. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or prerequisites, but the contrast provides sufficient guidance.

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