transpose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return value but does not state that the operation is destructive, whether it modifies the original selection, or if there are prerequisites (e.g., a selection must exist). This is insufficient for a mutation 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 with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section with examples, and a Returns line. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is easy to scan.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, it lacks details on edge cases, such as what happens if no selection exists or if the selection contains non-pitch elements.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that semitones can be positive or negative and provides concrete examples (e.g., 12 = up one octave). This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Transpose the current selection by semitones', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transpose_for_instrument and transpose_octave by focusing on semitone transposition of the selection.

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 examples of semitone values but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like transpose_for_instrument or transpose_octave. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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