transpose_for_instrument

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the transformation direction (written to concert or vice versa) and return type, but does not explicitly state that the tool is a pure computation with no score side effects or dependencies, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 relatively concise (4 lines plus blank), but includes a redundant 'Args' section that mirrors the schema. The first sentence is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined by removing the 'Args' header and integrating examples.

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 explains the return value ('Transposed pitch with interval info'), and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need further detail. It covers the essential aspects for a computational tool, though it could mention that pitch format should follow scientific notation (e.g., C4) for completeness.

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 provides brief but meaningful explanations for each parameter: examples for pitch and instrument, and the boolean meaning for to_concert. This adds value beyond the schema types, though more details on valid instrument names would improve.

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 tool's function: transpose a pitch for a transposing instrument. It uses a specific verb ('Transpose') and resource ('pitch for a transposing instrument'), and it is distinguished from sibling tools like 'transpose' (general transposition) and 'transpose_octave' (octave only).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transpose' or 'check_instrument_range'. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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