apply_midi_chord_inversion

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds useful context by mentioning 'guarded' (implying safety checks) and 'complete native note readback verification' (a behavioral trait of verifying results). It does not explicitly state that the tool modifies the clip, but the annotation already covers that. The verification detail goes beyond the structured fields, adding 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. It avoids redundancy but is slightly dense. It could have mentioned the two-step dry-run/apply workflow explicitly, but it remains concise and well-structured for its length.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, a required expectedStateVersion, and a dry-run/apply workflow indicated by planHash and confirmationToken. The description does not explain the workflow, prerequisites (like obtaining track/clip IDs), or what the tool returns. Without an output schema, the description should provide more guidance, but it is minimal. An agent would need to infer the process entirely from the schema, making this incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 9 parameters documented. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning or relationships. Since the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('plan or apply guarded chord inversions') and adds a verification component ('complete native note readback verification'). It distinguishes from the sibling plan_midi_chord_inversion by including 'apply', and the mention of 'guarded' hints at a safety mechanism. The verb+resource is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling plan_midi_chord_inversion or other apply_* tools. The description does not explain that this combines planning and applying, nor when a dry-run is needed versus direct application. The schema implies a two-step workflow but the description gives no explicit direction.

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