apply_midi_chord_voice_leading

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates but is non-destructive. The description adds 'guarded' (implying a two-phase dry-run/confirm protocol) and 'complete native note readback verification', which go beyond the annotations. However, for a mutating tool the description carries substantial burden and does not disclose what gets modified, reversibility, or how the guard is enforced.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Plan or apply guarded chord voice leading'). It is efficient, though bordering on under-specification for a tool with 10 parameters and a two-phase workflow.

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 two-phase mutation tool (10 params, 7 required, dryRun/confirmationToken/planHash/expectedStateVersion protocol, no output schema). The description does not explain the guard sequence, when a dry run is required, what the readback verification validates, or failure/error behavior. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without inspecting the schema closely.

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 80%, with most parameters (mode, clipId, dryRun, noteIds, trackId, confirmationToken, expectedStateVersion) already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 states a specific operation (chord voice leading) with a dual 'plan or apply' mode, which distinguishes it from the plan-only sibling plan_midi_chord_voice_leading. 'Guarded' and 'readback verification' add useful specificity. It is clear but could more explicitly position itself as the apply counterpart to the plan-only tool.

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 on when to use this tool versus plan_midi_chord_voice_leading or the other apply_midi_* siblings. The 'plan or apply' phrasing implies a workflow but does not explain when each mode is appropriate or which alternative to prefer. No exclusions or decision conditions are provided.

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