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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the effect on notes (clamping loses pitch info, wrapping preserves pitch class), the fallback behavior, and the return values (adjusted/clamped/wrapped counts). However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive/in-place or if it can be undone, which is a minor transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 long but well-organized with clear sections: introduction, mode explanations, common instrument ranges, parameter list, returns, and examples. Every element adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, two modes, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what problem it solves, how each mode behaves, parameter semantics, return values, and concrete examples. The added instrument range reference is a thoughtful extra that helps agents choose appropriate min/max values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: unit_index, track_index, region_index with '-1 = all' semantics, min/max_pitch with defaults and bounds, and mode values with explanations. This completely covers what the schema lacks.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Constrain notes to a pitch range' with two distinct modes (clamp and octave_wrap). It clearly identifies the use case (notes out of playable range after generation/transposition) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like transpose_notes or rotate_notes.

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?

Explicit guidance is given on when to use the tool ('After AI generation, transcription, or aggressive transposition') and when to choose each mode: clamp for exact range safety (e.g., MIDI 0-127), octave_wrap for instrument ranges. The edge case of ranges smaller than 12 semitones is also documented.

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