apply_midi_scale_chord_remapping

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is low-information for a mutating tool. The description adds some meaningful behavior clues: the operation is 'guarded' and returns 'complete native readback', but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or the difference between plan and apply outcomes.

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 one compact sentence with the key distinction (plan vs apply) front-loaded. Every term earns its place, though phrases like 'guarded' and 'native readback' are jargon-heavy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, dryRun/apply split, guarded writes, no output schema), the description is somewhat thin. It does mention readback and guarding, but it omits the plan-then-confirm workflow and does not explain what the returned plan or readback contains.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds mild semantic value by tying 'optional bass voice leading' to the mode parameter and 'guarded' to the state/token safety mechanism, but it mostly relies on the schema rather than compensating or enriching parameter meaning.

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 clear action ('Plan or apply') and resource ('scale-aware chord remapping') with useful modifiers ('guarded', 'optional bass voice leading', 'complete native readback'). It distinguishes this as a plan-or-apply tool, though it does not explicitly reference sibling plan_midi_scale_chord_remapping or other alternatives, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the sibling plan_midi_scale_chord_remapping or other MIDI chord tools. 'Plan or apply' implies the dryRun/apply workflow, but the description does not state the required sequence (dry run first, then apply with confirmationToken) or any exclusions.

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