Create MIDI note reactive

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations. It reveals the internal chain structure (midiinCHOP → eventCHOP → Null CHOP), explains how output channels pulse, and crucially discloses that the device path is 'HARDWARE-GATED (HELD FROM RELEASE until validated with real MIDI gear).' This goes well beyond the sparse annotations and clearly communicates side effects and constraints.

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 dense but appropriately sized—about three sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides a comparative alternative, usage modes, and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 the full lifecycle: what the tool builds (the CHOP chain), how to interact with the result (binding to channels), the two source modes with their prerequisites, and the hardware-gating limitation. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries the burden and does so completely for a creation tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, setting baseline at 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by explaining the practical difference between 'synthetic' and 'device' (e.g., 'procedural note pattern' vs 'real MIDI keyboard'), including the hardware gating caveat. While the schema already describes each parameter, the description adds actionable context like 'so the chain is immediately visible' and the device_name filtering example, justifying a score above baseline.

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 purpose: 'Build a MIDI note → per-note trigger/velocity chain that exposes bindable channels on a Null CHOP (note0…noteN-1).' It uses a specific verb ('Build'), names the resource (MIDI note chain, Null CHOP), and explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling tool ('Unlike learn_control (which binds one CC), this creates a full note-event chain'). This meets the highest bar for purpose clarity.

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 explicit usage guidance: it contrasts with learn_control, explains when to use synthetic vs device sources ('source='synthetic' (default) previews without hardware… switch to source='device' when a MIDI keyboard is connected'), and warns about the hardware-gated device path. This gives the agent clear conditional context and an alternative, fulfilling the dimension fully.

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