midi_fx_types

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds domain context — the transform/generator behavioral split and the 'locked to the song while a clip plays' constraint on generators — which helps interpret results, but says nothing about whether this is a static catalog, caching, or output shape.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core concept and then expanding into the two families. The long name enumerations earn their place as they tell the agent exactly what to expect back, though the parenthetical lists make it dense.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return shape. Listing the type names partly does this, but it never says whether the response includes identifiers/slugs usable with midi_fx_add, descriptions, or parameter metadata — a real gap for the natural follow-up call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless full-catalog read, with no misleading hints about filtering arguments.

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 resource — the catalog of MIDI effects that sit before a track's instrument — and splits it into two named families (transforms vs generators) with examples of each. An agent immediately understands this enumerates available effect types rather than instances, distinguishing it in substance from midi_fx_list, though the description never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before midi_fx_add, but the description never says 'use this to find a type name to pass to midi_fx_add' or when to prefer midi_fx_list. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are stated.

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