plan_midi_drop_voicing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds 'deterministic' and 'complete chord onsets', which provide some behavioral context, but it does not disclose what the plan consists of, how it is returned, or whether it can be reused. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose with no fluff. The scoping term 'complete chord onsets' is placed early, and the sentence is easily parseable.

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 and no mention of what the plan contains or how it should be consumed. It does not explain the relationship with apply_midi_drop_voicing or how the plan is intended to be used downstream. For a planning tool, this is a notable gap that could confuse an agent.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds the 'complete chord onsets' qualifier, which clarifies the expected nature of noteIds. However, it does not add substantive detail beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb (Plan), a specific resource (drop-2, drop-3, or drop-2-and-4 voicings), and a specific scope (complete chord onsets). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling apply_midi_drop_voicing and other planning tools like plan_midi_chord_inversion.

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 it is a planning tool, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus apply_midi_drop_voicing or other planning tools. No exclusion criteria or alternative mentions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the planning-only nature from the verb 'Plan'.

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