add_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important behaviors: notes are placed inside the target pattern, clips are extended automatically when notes exceed the pattern length, and notes beyond the clip end would be silent. It also clarifies the effect of pattern_index and the prerequisite of using place_pattern.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and then uses a tightly organized Args block. Each parameter line adds meaningful operational detail without fluff, making the length appropriate for a 7-parameter tool.

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 tool's complexity, zero annotation coverage, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: all parameter semantics, edge-case behavior, constraints, and a prerequisite pointer. Since an output schema is present, not describing the return value is acceptable.

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 fully compensates. Every parameter is explained with units, ranges, defaults, or examples: key maps 60=C4 and 69=A4, pos uses ticks with 192 ticks per bar, length gives note equivalents, volume spans 0-200, panning spans -100 to +100, and pattern_index has its default and prerequisite explained.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Add a note to a track's pattern.' This identifies both the action and the target resource, and the MIDI-note-number parameter distinguishes it from siblings like add_note_by_name and add_notes_batch.

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 concrete usage constraints: the track must be an instrument or pattern track, positions are relative to the pattern start, and place_pattern should be used to create additional patterns first. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with add_note_by_name or add_notes_batch, but the intended context is clearly conveyed.

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