edit_midi_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: mutations are scoped ('the rest stay as they are') and reversible in a specific granularity ('One undo step'). It does not cover auth/preconditions or return format, but for a MIDI edit tool the disclosure of partial-edit and undo semantics is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and operations, then closes with the two most behaviorally important facts (filter scoping, undo granularity). Dense but every clause earns its place given 15 operations; the operation enumeration is long but justified by the breadth of the 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?

For a 30-parameter, 15-operation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation space, filter scoping, and undo semantics adequately. It leans on the schema for per-parameter detail, which is reasonable given the rich enum description, leaving only minor gaps (prerequisites, selection interaction).

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 60%, between the low and high baselines, so the schema already documents much of the per-parameter meaning (grid, key, scale, steps, chords_item, etc.). The description reinforces the operation groupings but adds little parameter syntax beyond what the schema's own operation and property descriptions provide.

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 and resource ('Edits existing MIDI notes') and enumerates the full operation surface (quantize, humanize, transpose, snap, velocity, strum, legato, motif development). It cleanly distinguishes itself from siblings like add_midi_notes, delete_midi_notes, and get_midi_notes by the 'existing' qualifier.

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?

'Edits existing MIDI notes' plus 'Filters pick which notes; the rest stay as they are' gives clear context for when this applies versus creation or deletion tools. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools or stating exclusions, so it is clear context but not full when/when-not routing.

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