channel_trigger_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly states that the note is one-shot and not recorded, signaling transient, non-destructive behavior. It does not discuss return values or effects on playback state, but the most important safety-relevant trait is covered.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds key behavioral context without bloating the text.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is minimally viable but thin. It makes the purpose and non-recording behavior clear, but leaves channel addressing, velocity/duration semantics, and any side effects to be inferred from the schema.

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 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. 'One-shot MIDI note' and 'the channel' weakly map to note and index, while velocity and duration_ms are completely unaddressed; an agent must rely on parameter names and defaults 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 uses a specific verb, 'Trigger', names the exact resource, 'one-shot MIDI note', and scopes it to 'the channel'. The parenthetical 'live preview, not recorded' clearly distinguishes it from recorded note-editing tools like piano_roll_add_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 clearly frames when to use this tool: for live preview/auditioning, not for recording or arrangement editing. It explicitly excludes recording, which is a strong usage boundary, though it does not name a specific sibling tool as the alternative.

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