apply_midi_diatonic_harmony

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it signals guarded execution and explicitly promises preservation of source notes and expression. It does not discuss repeated-application side effects or scale/tonality assumptions, but it goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the action, the guarded nature, the resource, and the preservation constraint into one efficient statement.

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 tool has 8 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence and leans heavily on schema field descriptions. It does not state preconditions such as valid track/clip or scale context, nor what happens when applying harmony to already-harmonized notes, which an agent would need for fully confident usage.

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 100%, so each parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description adds only conceptual framing ('scale-aware harmony additions') and does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the input schema already contains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Plan or apply'), a specific resource ('scale-aware harmony additions'), and a key invariant ('preserving source notes and expression'). It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like plan_midi_diatonic_harmony or apply_midi_diatonic_chord_quality, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Plan or apply guarded' plus the dryRun/confirmationToken schema descriptions imply a two-phase workflow: plan first, then apply with a token. However, the description itself gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling planning tool or other harmony tools, and it states no exclusions or alternatives.

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