apply_midi_drop_voicing

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is minimally conveyed. The description adds 'guarded' and 'complete native note readback verification', which are useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe what happens to selected notes, the confirmation/expectedStateVersion checks, or what verification entails in practice.

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 sentence with no filler; the core action and key verification behavior are front-loaded. It could be slightly clearer on the two-phase workflow, but the sentence is compact and purposeful.

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 a complex 8-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this one-sentence description omits the crucial two-phase plan/apply workflow, the need for expectedStateVersion, and the relationship to plan_midi_drop_voicing. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description doesn't orient the agent on how to sequence calls or interpret the 'readback verification' result. This is insufficient for a guarded mutation tool.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100% and individual parameters have detailed descriptions (e.g., dryRun, confirmationToken, expectedStateVersion), the description doesn't need to re-explain them. The phrase 'Plan or apply' loosely mirrors the dryRun semantics but adds no parameter-specific detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 action ('Plan or apply') on a specific resource ('guarded chord drop voicings'), and the phrase 'Plan or apply' hints at the dry-run/apply workflow that distinguishes it from plan-only siblings like plan_midi_drop_voicing. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast the sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. It does not mention plan_midi_drop_voicing or explain when to plan vs apply. 'Plan or apply' implies two modes, but the agent is left to infer the workflow from the schema.

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