add_note_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains parameter units and formats, but it does not mention side effects, prerequisites such as an active project or existing track, state mutation, or what the output contains. The 'Add' verb implies mutation but leaves operational context undisclosed.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and then uses a clean Arg list. Every line provides useful information with no filler or repetition of the schema types.

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?

The parameter semantics are complete enough for invocation, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks usage context such as when to prefer this over add_note or add_notes_batch, and it does not state prerequisite conditions like a loaded project or valid track. This leaves selection and error-prevention incomplete.

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 meaningful detail: track_index is zero-based, note_name uses a note-name format, pos and length are in ticks with concrete values, and volume has a range of 0-200. Examples clarify the expected string formats.

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 what the tool does: 'Add a note using a note name' with concrete examples like 'C4', 'A#3', and 'F#5'. It names the resource and the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools add_note and add_notes_batch beyond the by-name hint.

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 about when to use this tool versus add_note, add_notes_batch, or note_name_to_key. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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