apply_midi_feel_template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false but the description adds valuable behavior: guarded per-note edits that preserve note IDs, durations and expression metadata, the dry-run/plan-vs-transfer workflow, and the rejection of groove-assigned targets. It does not cover permissions or the confirmation-token lifecycle in depth.

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?

Four compact sentences, each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded. Slightly dense but no filler.

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 10-parameter tool with nested template objects and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral constraints (planning vs applying, audio-vs-MIDI limits, preservation guarantees, groove rejection). It could say more about the expectedStateVersion/planHash flow, but the essentials are present.

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 already 90%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds non-obvious semantics tying template type to parameter values (audio feel requires velocityAmount zero because audio strength is not MIDI velocity) and clarifies timingAmount/velocityAmount as blend amounts.

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?

States a specific verb (plan or transfer) and resource (a stored-MIDI feel template or measured audio feel summary) applied to exact target note IDs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from Live Groove Pool baking and implies its relationship to save/load/analyze feel-template siblings.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions: MIDI templates support timing+velocity blends, while audio feel is timing-only and forces velocityAmount zero. It also states a rejection condition (target with an assigned native groove). It stops short of naming alternative tools to use instead.

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