edit_transpose

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that MIDI notes are transposed, implying a mutating operation, but it does not mention whether the change is destructive, reversible, or whether it has any side effects. The clarification about audio clips is a scope boundary, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences—with no superfluous content. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a single, relevant clarification. Every word serves a purpose.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It tells the agent what input is required and what the tool does. It could be enhanced by noting prerequisites (e.g., an open edit) or expected return value, but these are not critical for the tool's basic correct usage.

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 has no description for the `semitones` parameter, and the tool description only uses the parameter name without defining its meaning, range, or direction. The description implies the parameter is the transposition interval, but it does not specify whether negative values are allowed or provide any constraints, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the name alone.

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 (transpose), the target (every MIDI note in the Edit), and the parameter (semitones). It also explicitly clarifies that audio clips are not pitch-shifted, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 a clear usage boundary by stating that audio clips are NOT pitch-shifted, which helps an agent decide when not to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for audio pitch-shifting, so guidance is partial rather than fully prescriptive.

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