apply_midi_chord_doubling

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, leaving the description to carry behavioral context. The description adds valuable safety information: it is 'guarded', preserves existing notes, and verifies every native addition. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, giving the agent confidence that the operation is non-destructive and safe. It doesn't mention the two-phase plan/apply requirement, but that is partly covered by the schema parameters.

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 sentence. It front-loads the core action ('Plan or apply guarded chord doublings') and then adds two relevant qualifiers. There is no fluff, and it is easy to scan.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a plan/apply pattern (dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken). The description does not explain that applying requires a prior dry run and confirmation token, nor does it clarify the relationship to the plan-only sibling. While the schema covers these parameters, the description's job is to synthesize the workflow, which it fails to do. An agent might not realize the two-step process or the need to validate the plan before applying.

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% – every parameter is described with its purpose. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'preserving existing notes' which loosely relates to noteIds but doesn't clarify parameter interactions. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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: to plan or apply chord doublings. It is specific about the verb ('plan or apply') and resource ('chord doublings'), and it adds important constraints ('guarded', 'preserving existing notes', 'verifying every native addition'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_midi_chord_doubling and other apply_midi_* tools.

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 for chord doubling but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling plan_midi_chord_doubling or other chord manipulation tools. It mentions 'plan or apply' but doesn't clarify that applying requires a prior plan or that planning alone might be better served by the dedicated planning tool. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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