plan_midi_diatonic_transposition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds context that the operation uses Live's current key/scale and is restricted to exact in-scale note IDs, which informs the agent about dependencies and constraints. It does not mention the return format or any validation behavior, but given the annotations, it provides adequate transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. The verb is first, followed by the object and context. It earns its place efficiently.

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 planning tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It doesn't explain what the returned plan looks like, how it can be applied (e.g., with apply_midi_diatonic_transposition), or any prerequisites beyond Live's key/scale. The schema covers parameter semantics, but an agent may be left unsure how to consume the result of this planning operation. Given the sibling set, the workflow is inferable but not explicit.

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 all four parameters (trackId, clipId, noteIds, scaleSteps) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Plan'), resource ('scale-degree transposition of exact in-scale MIDI note IDs'), and context ('using Live's current key and scale'). The word 'Plan' clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like apply_midi_diatonic_transposition, which actually execute the transposition. No ambiguity about what operation is being planned.

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 usage for planning diatonic transpositions of in-scale notes, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as plan_midi_transposition or apply_midi_diatonic_transposition. It does not provide exclusion criteria or point to sibling tools. Some guidance is inferred from the name and context, but no explicit routing.

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