remove_notes_extended

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the range-based behavior and parameter constraints, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the operation is undoable, what happens with out-of-bounds indices, or whether it is destructive beyond the obvious 'remove' action.

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: a concise purpose statement, a note on required parameters with usage guidance, and a clear Args list. Every sentence contributes information, with no extraneous content.

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 the key aspects: what the tool does, all parameter semantics, and how to span full ranges. It doesn't explicitly mention prerequisites like valid track/clip indices or that the clip must be a MIDI clip, but these are implied. Given the output schema exists, return values are not needed.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args list that explains each parameter, including valid ranges (e.g., from_pitch 0-127, pitch_span 1-128) and how to use them for full-span selection. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource ('MIDI notes from a clip') and a precise scope ('within an explicit pitch and time range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_notes_from_clip and clear_clip_notes, which lack the range qualifier.

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?

It clearly states that all four range parameters are required and provides explicit instructions for spanning all pitches/time. However, it does not mention alternatives or when to use this over other note-removal tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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