nudge_midi_notes

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the sparse annotations: note lengths are preserved, clamping behavior at item boundaries is specified, and the out_of_bounds vs clamped distinction is disclosed. This is valuable context for an agent predicting side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by useful edge-case semantics and a parameter note. It wastes no words, though the Args section is incomplete relative to the actual parameter set.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It explains only one parameter and does not describe the return value or the role of filtering parameters like channel, pitch range, or start/end beat.

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 10 undocumented parameters. It only explains amount_beats, leaving track_index, item_index, fields, channel, pitch_low, pitch_high, start_beat, end_beat, and return_notes unexplained. The amount_beats explanation is good, but the majority of parameters remain opaque.

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 a specific operation: shifting MIDI notes in time by beats, with sign convention. It distinguishes itself from sibling MIDI tools by focusing on temporal nudge rather than pitch, velocity, or quantization.

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 intended use is implied by the description ('Shift MIDI notes in time'), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like transpose_midi_notes, stretch_midi_notes, or quantize_midi_notes. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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