apply_midi_velocity_curve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly implies a guarded mutation. The description adds the key behavioral guarantee that timing, pitch, duration, probability, and expression metadata are preserved, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. It does not detail failure modes or confirmation token expiry, but the guarded dry-run/apply pattern is disclosed.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action ('Plan or apply'), names the resource, and lists the preservation guarantees. No wasted words; every phrase 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 a guarded mutation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the plan/apply duality and the preservation guarantees. It could add a note about the confirmation token being required for apply, but the dryRun parameter description already covers that.

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 schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds the preservation guarantee and the guarded plan/apply semantics, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), a specific resource ('guarded MIDI velocity curve'), and explicit preservation guarantees ('preserving timing, pitch, duration, probability, and expression metadata'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling planning tools like plan_midi_velocity_curve and other apply_midi_* tools.

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 the two-phase workflow ('Plan or apply') and the dryRun/confirmationToken parameters make the when-to-use explicit. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus plan_midi_velocity_curve or other apply_midi_* tools.

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