Learn control (MIDI/OSC learn)

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: it's stateful (snapshot stored in parent COMP), requires two calls, binds via expression, and is experimental. It also warns to verify the matched channel, which is important for correctness. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the experimental nature and core purpose. Every sentence is informative, but it's somewhat run-on and could be broken into steps for easier parsing. Still, no wasted words.

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 complex, stateful tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, statefulness, prerequisites, and a sanity check (verify channel). It also references failure handling (min_delta warning) indirectly. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The overall description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely mentions 'optional scale/offset' and references the source CHOP and target generically, which are already detailed in the 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 clearly states a specific two-step process ('snapshot' then 'bind') with precise verbs: record, diff, find, bind. It identifies the resource (input CHOP, target parameter) and distinguishes itself from typical MIDI learn tools by the stateful snapshot approach and experimental status.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step instructions: call with mode:'snapshot' first, wiggle a control, then call with mode:'bind'. It clarifies prerequisites (input CHOP, controls at rest) and warns to verify the matched channel. However, it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it's clear context without explicit exclusions.

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