delete_midi_note

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals that this operation is destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that—it specifies the target (a MIDI note within an item) but doesn't disclose whether the deletion is undoable, whether it affects only the selected note or all notes at that index, or what happens if indices are out of range. With the annotation covering the destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate: the description adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. It earns its place with no wasted words. However, it could have used the brevity to add parameter context or usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the indexing semantics, prerequisites, or effects beyond the basic action. The destructiveHint annotation covers the safety warning, but an agent still lacks enough information to call this tool correctly without guessing at index meanings.

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%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters (track_index, item_index, note_index). The description only mentions 'an item' and 'a MIDI note' but doesn't explain the indexing scheme (e.g., zero-based vs one-based, which item, which note). It doesn't clarify the relationship between track_index and item_index or how note_index maps to notes within the item. This is a significant gap for a tool with three required integer parameters.

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 'Delete a MIDI note from an item' clearly states the verb (delete), the resource (MIDI note), and the container (an item). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_midi_note, set_midi_note, and clear_midi_item, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clear and specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_selected_items, clear_midi_item, or remove_overlapping_midi_notes. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the item must contain MIDI notes, indices must be valid) or context for when deletion is appropriate. An agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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