transform_midi_notes

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds 'guarded' and 'Plan or apply', which conveys mutation with a safety workflow and precise targeting. It does not spell out confirmation-token or state-version gating, but the schema covers those details.

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 that names operations, scope, and guarded plan/apply behavior with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter guarded mutation tool, the description supplies the essential scope and operation selection, while the schema carries most operational detail. It is slightly thin on explicitly explaining the two-phase plan/confirm protocol, but the dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken fields fill that gap.

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 88% and parameter descriptions already explain the operation subfields and IDs. The description reinforces 'exact MIDI note IDs' and one clip scope but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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/resource and the exact operations: 'Plan or apply guarded quantize, legato, or duplicate transforms to exact MIDI note IDs on one exact Session or Arrangement MIDI clip.' This clearly distinguishes it from audio-quantize, clip-duplication, and plan-only MIDI sibling tools.

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 when to use the tool (for quantize/legato/duplicate transformations on specific note IDs) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The plan/apply workflow is only discoverable from schema fields like dryRun and confirmationToken rather than from the description.

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