strum_midi_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral trait: only onsets move while note lengths are preserved. It omits whether this mutates in place, whether it operates on selected notes or all notes in the indexed item, whether it is undoable, and what return_notes (default true) yields.

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 purpose statement, then the key behavioral constraint, then a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of the name or filler.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description leaves major gaps: the meaning of track_index/item_index and the beat/pitch selectors is never stated, and there is no indication of scope (selection vs. whole item) or side effects.

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% and there are 12 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It documents three well (spread_beats range, direction values that the schema does not enumerate, chord_window grouping tolerance) but leaves nine parameters — track_index, item_index, start_beat/end_beat, pitch_low/pitch_high, channel, fields, return_notes — completely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell which item or note set is targeted.

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 and resource: stagger onsets of simultaneous notes so chords roll out. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct in effect from siblings like quantize_midi_notes or humanize_midi_notes, though it never explicitly says how it differs from them. An agent knows what it does but must infer when it beats the alternatives.

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 mechanics imply usage (0 spread_beats = no-op, chord_window controls grouping), and the direction values are explained, which helps an agent configure it. But there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the closely related humanize/quantize/stretch siblings that also reshape note timing.

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