add_notes_with_probability

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the default replace behavior and explains the limitation of the legacy API. However, it doesn't describe merge behavior when replace=false, error conditions, or explicit mutating side effects, so there are gaps.

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 well-organized with a clear intro, usage note, and parameter list; every sentence contributes useful information without being verbose.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and the replace behavior, making it nearly complete for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema. It doesn't mention return values or error handling, but those are not critical for this mutation tool.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description describes each parameter, including the structure of notes (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute, optional probability and velocity_deviation) and the default for replace, providing substantial semantic value.

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 'Add MIDI notes carrying per-note probability and velocity deviation,' which identifies a specific verb and resource, and clearly differentiates from add_notes_to_clip by highlighting the probability feature.

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?

It explicitly directs users to prefer this tool over add_notes_to_clip for generative tasks, explaining that the legacy API lacks probability support and would silently drop it. This provides a clear alternative and when-to-use guidance, though it doesn't state when not to use it.

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