create_midi_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and the index parameter but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it select the new track, what defaults are used, returns of the call). This is minimal disclosure for a mutating tool.

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 concise: one sentence for the main action and one bullet for the parameter. It front-loads the purpose and avoids extraneous content, with every word earning 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 a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the core action and parameter are covered. However, it lacks information about return value, whether the track is selected, or any default behavioral aspects, which would make it more complete.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'index' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining 'The index to insert the track at (-1 = end of list)', giving clear semantic meaning beyond the default value and type.

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 'Create a new MIDI track in the Ableton session', using a specific verb (create) and resource (MIDI track). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_audio_track' by explicitly specifying 'MIDI'.

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 clear context that this tool is for creating a MIDI track, which implicitly differentiates it from create_audio_track. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it misses the highest score for explicit guidance.

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