plan_midi_humanization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it states the planning preserves expression metadata and rejects same-pitch collisions, which are important guarantees for an agent planning humanization. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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, tightly packed sentence that leads with the primary purpose and then states two critical constraints. Every phrase earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. The description is immediately scannable and informative.

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 description covers the core behavior and key constraints, but it omits any mention of what the plan output contains or how it should be consumed (e.g., whether it returns a structured plan to be applied by humanize_midi_notes). With no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the return value and next steps. Given the moderate complexity (7 params, no output schema), this is a notable gap.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description adds only high-level context ('deterministic', 'bounded') that relates to parameters like seed and max offsets, but does not elaborate on relationships or constraints beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage without adding significant value.

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?

Description clearly states a specific verb ('plan'), a precise resource ('MIDI note IDs'), and the exact scope ('deterministic bounded timing and velocity humanization'). It also names two key constraints ('preserves expression metadata', 'rejects new same-pitch collisions'), which sharply distinguishes it from siblings like humanize_midi_notes (which likely applies rather than plans) and other plan_* 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 a planning workflow via the word 'plan', and the sibling humanize_midi_notes suggests a later apply step, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance is provided, so the agent must infer the distinction from the tool name and sibling list.

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