send_midi_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action and parameters without disclosing side effects, error conditions, or safety (e.g., is it destructive?). For a non-destructive MIDI message, more detail on behavior would be expected.

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 docstring with Args and Returns sections. It is relatively concise but could remove the Returns line since an output schema exists. The structure is clear and front-loaded with the purpose.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics. However, it lacks usage context like when to use vs. send_midi_note, and the term 'Setup MSC channel' may be unclear to novices. For a technical user, it is minimally adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains controller (0-127), value (0-127), and channel (optional with default behavior). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/title fields.

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 it sends a MIDI control-change message via the MIDI Out port. The verb 'Send' and resource 'MIDI control-change (CC) message' are specific. The sibling tools like send_midi_note and send_midi_program are distinct, so no confusion.

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 provides a hint about the channel default ('uses the Setup MSC channel if omitted'), but lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It does not explain when to prefer this tool over other MIDI sending tools or any prerequisites.

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