plan_midi_scale_chord_remapping

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds a useful behavioral invariant ('preserving chord intervals and expression') and scopes the operation to 'complete chord onsets,' but it does not describe what the plan output looks like or how the current scale is resolved.

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 filler. It states the core action, target resource, and key constraints efficiently, making it easy to scan.

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 input schema and annotations cover the parameters and side-effect profile, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the plan returns or how it should be consumed. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the current scale must be set beforehand, leaving the agent to infer important execution context.

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 the parameters are already well documented, including the mode enum semantics. The description's terms like 'explicit degrees' and 'complete chord onsets' mirror the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the 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 names a specific action and resource: planning chord onsets onto explicit scale degrees of Live's current scale, with the added constraint of preserving intervals and expression. It is distinguishable from apply_midi_scale_chord_remapping by the word 'Plan' and from other plan_midi_* tools by its focus on scale-degree remapping, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this over alternatives such as apply_midi_scale_chord_remapping, plan_midi_diatonic_transposition, or plan_midi_chord_voice_leading. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the verb 'Plan.'

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