load_midi_feel_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the template comes from a private local library, the call has no side effects on Live, and it does not pull native Groove Pool patterns. That guards against the common misread that 'load' equals 'apply'.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the positive statement of what is loaded comes first and the exclusions follow.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete. The only gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not say what the loaded template returns, which matters for a 'for review' use case.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% ('Exact saved MIDI feel template name'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description merely says 'named', adding no format, case-sensitivity, or lookup details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Load a named stored-MIDI feel template') with a clear scope ('from the private local library'), which separates it from save_midi_feel_template and apply_midi_feel_template. The trailing phrase 'for review or guarded transfer' softens an otherwise crisp statement but still conveys intent.

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?

It states the intended context ('for review or guarded transfer') and gives exclusions ('Does not change Live or retrieve native Groove Pool patterns'), which steers an agent away from apply_midi_feel_template and the Groove Pool siblings. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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