modify_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the required structure of modification dicts and allowed properties, but does not mention error handling, unit specifications, or behavior when notes are not found. This is moderate transparency—more than a minimal statement but lacking crucial operational details.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, a detailed paragraph on modification dict format, and a clear Args list. It is concise with no filler—every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

While the description covers the essential usage, it lacks details on units (e.g., pitch as MIDI note number, start_time in beats) and edge case behavior. For a note editing tool, these are important gaps. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but input semantics remain partially unspecified.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: zero-based indices for track and clip, and modification dicts with pitch, start_time, and properties to modify. It lists properties that can be changed but does not specify units or value ranges, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: 'Modify properties of existing MIDI notes in a clip.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip and remove_notes_from_clip by focusing on modifying existing notes. It also enumerates modifiable properties (velocity, probability, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for usage: it targets existing MIDI notes and requires pitch and start_time for identification. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like replace_all_notes or remove_notes_extended. The context is sufficient for basic selection, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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