piano_roll_transpose

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Shift every note' implies an in-place mutation, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it affects all patterns or only the current one, whether it is undoable, or whether it returns any confirmation. For a mutation tool with no annotation safety profile, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no filler. 'Shift every note by N semitones' is direct, front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one parameter, the description is incomplete for practical use. It omits crucial context about which notes are affected, whether the piano roll must be open or a pattern selected, and what side effects occur. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more operational context, especially because many piano_roll_* siblings operate on a shared implicit state.

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 schema has one required integer parameter, 'semitones', with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds the meaning that semitones is the interval by which every note is shifted, which is useful but largely restates the parameter name. It does not explain valid ranges, negative values, or upper/lower bounds, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Shift every note by N semitones.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like piano_roll_quantize, piano_roll_humanize, and piano_roll_duplicate. It loses one point because it does not specify which notes are affected (current pattern, selection, or active piano roll), leaving slight ambiguity about the operation's scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to prefer this tool over related siblings, whether it requires an active piano roll or selected notes, or when not to use it. The purpose implies usage, but nothing explicit helps an agent choose or avoid this tool in context.

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