delete_midi_cc

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

destructiveHint=true already flags this as a destructive operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the dangerous no-filter default (deletes everything) and that the change is recoverable via 'One undo step'. It does not say how many events were removed or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with the action and followed by the destructive default and the undo reassurance. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive, filter-driven tool with no output schema and no docs on most params, the description covers the essential risk (bulk deletion when unfiltered) and reversibility. It is close to complete, though the missing per-parameter semantics is the remaining gap.

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?

With only 17% schema coverage, the description must carry the load. It explains the collective filter semantics and the null-means-all default (not stated in the schema), and hints at cc=64, but never clarifies kind, channel, or the start/end time units, leaving five params largely opaque.

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 ('Deletes') and resource ('controller events'), and the qualifier 'matching the filters' plus the sustain-pedal/pitch-bend examples make the scope unmistakable. The contrast with sibling verbs (add_midi_cc, get_midi_cc) and with delete_midi_notes is clear from 'controller events', though no sibling is named 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?

Gives concrete usage context: clear the sustain pedal (cc=64) or old pitch bends, and states the important default that all matching events are removed when no filters are passed. No explicit routing to alternatives (get_midi_cc, delete_midi_notes), so it stops short of a 5.

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