Add MIDI notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the key measurement unit (beats relative to item start) and the concept of 'active take', which are important. However, it does not disclose whether notes are appended to existing notes, whether the item's length changes, error handling for non-existent items, or any side effects. It is a mutation tool, but the description does not elaborate on impacts beyond adding notes. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 three concise sentences, each adding critical information: the action and target, the measurement unit, and the batching capability. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids any fluff or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters (one a complex array) and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain how to specify the target item (track_index and item_index), the meaning of 'active take', or the expected return value. Error conditions and behavior when notes are added to an existing item are unaddressed. The description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 description coverage is low (33%), with only the 'notes' parameter having descriptive text in the schema. The description adds meaning for start_beat and length_beat by specifying beats relative to item start, and it clarifies the batching of notes. However, it does not explain how to identify the target item – track_index and item_index lack any guidance beyond integer ranges. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves the indexing semantics ambiguous.

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 action ('Add MIDI notes'), the target ('active take of an existing MIDI item'), and the scope (positions/lengths in beats relative to item start). It distinguishes from siblings like reaper_create_midi_item by emphasizing 'existing' item, and the batching hint ('Insert many notes in one call') clarifies a key capability. The verb-resource pair is specific and 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 implies usage on existing MIDI items but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It notes that many notes can be inserted in one call, which is a batching hint, but it lacks explicit direction such as 'use reaper_create_midi_item to create a new item first.' The prerequisite of an existing item is clear, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so guidance is only implied.

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