Notes Copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the copy/tile mechanics but says nothing about what `mode` selects, whether destination notes are overwritten, or that `transpose` alters pitch. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial 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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and framed source-to-destination. No wasted words, though the parenthetical packing makes it terse rather than a model of clarity.

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?

An 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage needs more than this single sentence. Return values are covered by the output schema, but mode/transpose behavior and usage conditions are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies from_bars ("bars [a, b]"), to_bar, to_track (default same), and times ("tiled"), but leaves three meaningful params — mode, transpose, and project — entirely unexplained, and transpose silently changes pitch.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (notes) with source and destination clearly identified: bars [a,b] of `track` to `to_bar` of `to_track`, tiled `times`. This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like notes_write, notes_clear, and notes_transform, though it never names them.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The intent (duplicate/relocate an existing note range) is only implied by the verb; there is no steering toward notes_transform, notes_write, or other alternatives for editing notes.

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