add_program_change

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool inserts a program change event but omits where it's inserted (at position on channel within item), whether it's a write/mutation, permission or selection requirements for item_id='selected', and what happens to existing program changes. For a MIDI-write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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 well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. The parenthetical list of synth types is informative but slightly long; still efficient overall.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate in framing the tool's purpose but thin on operational behavior (insertion point, mutation semantics, selection handling). It could do more to compensate for missing annotations.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters (item_id, program, bank_lsb/msb, position, channel defaults/ranges). The description adds the domain concept that 'bank select' is optional and goes first, which is useful context but not deep parameter syntax beyond 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?

Clear verb ('switches the sound') and resource (MIDI instrument program) with scope qualifiers about which synths respond to program changes. However it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from add_midi_cc (which could also write bank select CCs) or add_midi_notes, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 implies use for GM/hardware/multitimbral synths, giving implicit context for when the tool applies. It doesn't state when to avoid it (e.g., non-GM plugins, plugin parameter automation) or name alternatives like add_midi_cc for raw bank select.

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