plan_midi_transposition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate non-mutating behavior. However, it adds useful context by specifying that non-pitch note state is preserved, which is a behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations. This is valuable for an agent deciding whether this tool suits the task.

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 that communicates the core purpose without any waste. Every word contributes to defining the tool's operation.

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 is a 'plan' operation, but the description does not explain what the plan returns (e.g., a proposed set of transposed notes, a diff, or a confirmation). With no output schema and no description of the return value, an agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior. The large noteIds limit (up to 4096) also hints at a complex output, yet the description remains silent.

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 are fully described in the schema. The description only reiterates the concept of 'stable MIDI note IDs' without adding syntax or format details. It neither compensates for gaps nor provides extra insight, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('exact chromatic transposition of stable MIDI note IDs'), which clearly distinguishes it from the diatonic planning sibling and the apply siblings. The word 'chromatic' and 'Plan' make the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternative apply_midi_transposition or plan_midi_diatonic_transposition. There is no mention of 'use this to preview before applying' or any contrast with siblings, leaving the agent to infer the planning nature 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.