apply_midi_strum_pattern

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly guarantees preservation of pitch, velocity, probability, mute, release velocity, and velocity deviation, and it discloses the plan-vs-apply duality. It does not fully explain what 'guarded' means or the confirmation-token lifecycle, but those are partly evident in the schema, and the description offers no misleading safety claims.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and key preservation constraints. It avoids redundancy with the input schema, and every phrase earns its place; 'guarded' is slightly vague but not wasteful.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description stays quite terse: it omits the two-phase workflow (dry run then confirmationToken), the role of expectedStateVersion, and how it relates to plan_midi_strum_pattern. The schema covers parameter mechanics, but the description alone is not enough to orient an agent in a complex, guarded mutation flow.

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 schema already fully documents all nine parameters. The description's mention of preserved attributes relates to note properties but does not add specific meaning to direction, spreadBeats, noteIds, or the dryRun/confirmationToken flow beyond what the schema provides.

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') and a specific resource ('guarded chord strumming'), and it lists the preserved MIDI attributes, so the tool's core purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling plan_midi_strum_pattern or other apply_midi_* tools, leaving some ambiguity about when this is the right choice.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus plan_midi_strum_pattern or other MIDI apply tools. It merely says 'plan or apply', which is a workflow hint, but it does not state when a dry run is required, when a confirmation token is needed, or which sibling to prefer for planning-only scenarios.

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