scale_midi_note_velocities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses clamping to 1-127, the edge-case behavior of ratio 0.0 vs 1.0 in compress, the -1 sentinel meaning 'mean of matched notes', and reports back clamped/skipped/out_of_bounds/pivot_used. It stops short of stating side effects such as in-place mutation, undo implications, or selection requirements, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a structured Args/Returns block; each line carries information and there is no filler. The Args block is dense but every entry earns its place, so it stays on the efficient side of 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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully inlines the return shape and the key mode semantics. The significant omission is the filtering parameters that determine which notes are matched, without which an agent cannot fully predict scope.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents the four semantically loaded parameters (mode, ratio, value, pivot) with ranges and formulas. It leaves the 9 remaining parameters (fields, channel, start_beat, end_beat, pitch_low, pitch_high, track_index, item_index, return_notes) entirely unexplained, so the filtering/scope semantics an agent needs are missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (scale MIDI note velocities) and enumerates the three distinct strategies (multiply, set, compress), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like set_midi_note_velocity and ramp_midi_note_velocities. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 per-mode semantics implicitly route the agent (use 'set' for a fixed value, 'compress' to pull toward a pivot), which is real guidance for the mode parameter. However, it never states when to pick this tool over the adjacent siblings set_midi_note_velocity or ramp_midi_note_velocities, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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