set_midi_note_properties

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and do not convey the two-phase guarded workflow, the requirement for a confirmationToken, or the expectedStateVersion constraint. The description only says 'guarded' without explaining that a plan must be created first and that the apply requires a token, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and key attributes. While it lacks a structured breakdown, it is efficient and readable, earning a score above average.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not synthesize the essential workflow: plan first, then apply with a token, and the exact-state-version guard. It also fails to clarify how it fits among many similar plan_*/apply_* tools, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the full invocation 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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds a high-level mapping of the fields (timing, velocity, etc.) but does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already states. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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 tool's action ('Plan or apply'), the resource ('per-note timing, velocity, probability, mute, and pitch changes'), the targeting mechanism ('by stable note ID'), and the scope ('one exact Session or Arrangement MIDI clip'). It differentiates from siblings like plan_midi_velocity_curve by focusing on exact note-level edits rather than pattern transformations.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for precise per-note modifications or contrast it with high-level functions like transform_midi_notes or humanize_midi_notes. No alternative tools or conditions are referenced.

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