plan_midi_chord_inversion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context by specifying that the rotation is deterministic and that all non-pitch note state is preserved, giving the agent confidence about side effects beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe the output format or any deeper behavioral nuances.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and action, then adds a key constraint. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it extremely concise and efficient.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the plan contains or how it is intended to be used (e.g., feeding into apply_midi_chord_inversion). It does not mention the return format or provide any usage flow. For a planning tool with five required parameters, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about the plan's structure.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including detailed examples for clipId. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 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 clearly states the action: 'Plan deterministic octave rotation of complete chord onsets', specifying the resource (chord onsets) and the transformation (octave rotation). It also adds the scoping constraint 'preserving all non-pitch note state', which helps distinguish it from other MIDI transformation tools and from the apply_midi_chord_inversion sibling that likely executes the change.

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 alternatives. It does not mention that it is a read-only planning step to be used before applying the inversion, nor does it reference any sibling tools or conditions. An agent must infer its role from the 'plan' prefix in the name alone.

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