create_midi_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the item is empty, defaults to 4 bars, and returns an item_id—useful beyond the schema—but omits permissions required, side effects, error conditions, and whether it overwrites existing items.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, default behavior, and return value efficiently.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and return value but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain track selection details (covered partially by schema), what happens on invalid input, or how to chain with sibling tools. Adequate but incomplete.

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 67% (moderate), so the schema already documents track, length_qn, start_bar, and start_beat. The description adds the default length ('default 4 bars') but does not clarify name, length_bars, or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Creates) and resource (empty MIDI item), and clarifies it returns an item_id for later note/chord/drum operations. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings like add_midi_notes by emphasizing creation vs. adding, but does not name any sibling 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 phrase 'for adding notes, chords or drums' implies this tool is a prerequisite step before note-adding tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The workflow is suggested rather than spelled out.

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