insert_midi_notes

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms the tool modifies data by writing notes. It adds behavioral details such as batching, tempo correction, and a call cap, which go beyond the annotation. 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a third for the cap. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds valuable context without waste.

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 tool has an output schema (inferred), return values are covered elsewhere. The description explains the key context: batching rationale, tempo alignment, and performance cap. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention what happens if the cap is exceeded.

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 input schema has detailed descriptions for all properties, so schema_description_coverage is effectively high. The description adds value by clarifying that notes are in beats and mentioning the constant MAX_NOTES_PER_CALL for the cap, which is not 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 'Batch-write notes into a take' and emphasizes the key capability of PPQ/tempo-correct batch writing in one round-trip. This specific verb-resource pair ('write notes into a take') distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'quantize_notes' or 'transpose_notes'.

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 explains why batching is necessary ('per-note round-trips would hit the ~10 ops/sec file-IPC ceiling') and mentions a cap to avoid stalling the audio thread. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, the rationale provides clear context for when this tool should be used over individual note insertion.

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