plan_midi_velocity_curve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive planning operation. The description's 'Plan' aligns with this—it plans but does not apply—which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and the four supported velocity shapes. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could benefit from a hint about the 'planning' vs 'applying' distinction.

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?

Given the complexity of the curve variants and the requirement for 'complete ordered MIDI onsets', the description is adequate but could mention that it operates on complete onsets and that the output is a plan to be applied elsewhere. There's no output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it could clarify the planning nature and the relationship to apply_midi_velocity_curve.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including the curve variants. The description adds a high-level summary but doesn't detail the semantics of each parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Plan' and the resource 'MIDI velocity curve' with specific types (crescendo, decrescendo, fixed, or repeating accent) and scope ('across complete ordered MIDI onsets'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'apply_midi_velocity_curve' by emphasizing planning rather than applying, but it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 this is for planning velocity shapes before applying, and the schema indicates it works on specific clips and notes. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs 'apply_midi_velocity_curve' or other 'plan_midi_*' tools. The context of 'complete ordered MIDI onsets' gives some usage hints.

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