apply_midi_diatonic_transposition

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-destructive tool. The description adds 'guarded' but does not explain the two-step plan-then-apply workflow (dryRun + confirmationToken) that the schema reveals. It doesn't disclose that applying modifies the clip's notes or that a plan is required first. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it correctly implies mutability.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope, placing the core action ('Plan or apply') first. Every word earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a guarded two-step workflow (dryRun/confirmationToken) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain that applying requires a confirmationToken from a prior dry run, nor does it clarify the distinction from plan_midi_diatonic_transposition. The agent must infer critical workflow details from the schema, which is not ideal for correct invocation.

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% and all parameters have descriptive comments. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., scaleSteps is already defined as movement in degrees of Live's current scale). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 verb ('Plan or apply') and resource ('scale-degree MIDI transposition') with a clear scope ('guarded', 'bound to Live's current key and scale'). It distinguishes itself from generic transposition tools by specifying diatonic scale-degree behavior, and its dual plan/apply nature differentiates it from the plan-only sibling plan_midi_diatonic_transposition.

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 scale-degree transposition bound to the current key/scale but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not mention when to prefer this over plan_midi_diatonic_transposition (which is plan-only) or when a plan should be followed by an apply. Guidance is implied, not explicit.

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