plan_midi_strum_pattern

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'plan' verb aligns with that. It adds the behavioral constraint 'preserving every selected note end', which is useful, but it does not disclose what the plan returns or how it relates to the apply counterpart. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; efficient and scannable. It earns its place, though it is arguably a touch terse given the tool's complexity.

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 five required parameters and no output schema, the description omits the critical plan-then-apply workflow and the meaning of the tool's return value. An agent cannot tell what to do with the plan result or that apply_midi_strum_pattern is the execution counterpart.

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 schema fully documents all five parameters. The description echoes the direction enum (up/down/alternating) and implies note selection, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (plan) and resource (chord attacks / strum pattern) with the three directional modes and a constraint (preserving note ends). It is clearly distinct from applying, but it does not explain what a 'plan' produces versus what the sibling apply_midi_strum_pattern does, leaving some ambiguity about its exact role.

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 on when to call this planning tool versus the sibling apply_midi_strum_pattern, nor on the expected workflow of planning then applying. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned; an agent must infer the plan-then-apply pattern from the name alone.

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