piano_roll_quantize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Snap existing notes' implies mutation of note positions, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or how strength and grid_bars affect the result.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core operation without wasted words. It earns its place and is easy to parse.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and two unexplained parameters, this description is too minimal. It omits critical information such as parameter semantics, target scope, and operation side effects, leaving the agent under-equipped to call the tool reliably.

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 no meaning to the two parameters. While 'strength' and 'grid_bars' are somewhat self-descriptive names with defaults, the description does not clarify their ranges, units, or interaction, which the agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 verb ('Snap') and resource ('existing notes') with a target ('to a grid'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling operations like piano_roll_add_notes, piano_roll_humanize, and piano_roll_transpose, even without naming them explicitly.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about which notes are affected (selection, pattern, all), and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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