remove_notes

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 does not disclose the destructive nature of removal, whether changes are undoable, or how notes that cross range boundaries are handled. The description only states the basic operation, leaving important behavioral details ambiguous.

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 sentence followed by a structured parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff; every line adds value.

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 and parameter meanings but lacks return behavior, edge cases, and safety context (e.g., undoability). For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description lists all 6 parameters with meaningful explanations (e.g., 'from_time: Start time in beats', 'pitch_span: Number of pitches to include'), fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage. It adds units and ranges beyond the schema.

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 action ('Remove notes') and the resource ('from a clip within a specified range'), which distinguishes it from siblings like remove_all_notes and complements add_notes_to_clip. The verb and scope are specific.

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 purpose implies usage for targeted note removal, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remove_all_notes. Clear context exists, but exclusions and alternative comparisons are missing.

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