lc_set_notes

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 that failed events are reported and skipped, and that clear=true empties a tick. However, it does not mention whether existing notes at the same position are overwritten or any other side effects. Given no annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 many optional parameters and nested objects, the description covers the main usage patterns, failure behavior, and special cases like chord track only and clear=true. It omits a few details like the force parameter, but those are present in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the required combination of channel/page/tick with note and either instrument or chord, clarifying chord types, and mentioning optional parameters like volume/effect/expression/pan/envelope. This goes beyond the schema's bare property list.

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 a specific action ('Place individual notes at exact positions') and provides a usage context ('use when a pattern string is awkward'). It differentiates from siblings like lc_write_page by focusing on individual note placement rather than pattern strings.

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 explicitly mentions when to use it ('when a pattern string is awkward') and notes chord track only for chords. It could explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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