transpose_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this operation modifies existing notes, whether it is destructive, or if it preserves timing/velocity. The semitones direction is helpful, but the overall behavioral impact remains undisclosed.

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 (one line plus parameter list) and front-loads the action. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter list could arguably be left to the schema since it replicates structure; however, the added semantics justify its inclusion.

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?

For a simple mutation tool, the description is minimally viable. It explains what and parameters, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., effects on existing notes, return value, or undo guidance). Given no annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness, but it is acceptable for a straightforward operation.

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 provides only types and names with 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains track_index, clip_index, and semitones with meaningful context, including the directionality of semitones (positive up, negative down). This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 states a clear action: 'Transpose all notes in a clip.' This uses a specific verb ('transpose') and identifies the resource ('all notes in a clip'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip, remove_notes, and quantize_clip_notes by focusing on transposition.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites (e.g., selecting a clip with notes), or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without context.

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