add_notes_extended

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add' and documents parameters. It does not mention whether notes are appended or replaced, how invalid values are handled, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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?

Key information is present and logically organized, but there is redundancy: the note dict structure is described twice, once in prose and once in the Args section. This adds unnecessary length. A more concise version would merge these descriptions.

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 description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., append vs replace, validation, error behavior). Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the operation's effects and limitations are not fully specified. It provides adequate but incomplete contextual information.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and notes is an array of empty items, but the description thoroughly documents every parameter: track_index, clip_index, and the full structure of note dicts including types and ranges for all fields. This far exceeds schema capabilities and is essential for correct usage.

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 'Add MIDI notes with extended properties to a clip' clearly states the verb (add), resource (MIDI notes to a clip), and distinguishes this from the sibling add_notes_to_clip by emphasizing 'extended properties'. It further enumerates the note properties, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase 'with extended properties' establishes a clear context for when to use this tool—when you need properties like probability, velocity_deviation, release_velocity, or mute. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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