add_notes

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

Without annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it exits note-input mode cleanly via NoteInputSession even on error, and clarifies that success only indicates command acceptance, not actual note placement, advising verification through get_status/playback.

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?

The description is moderately sized and well-structured, with a clear first sentence and parameter list. Each sentence provides useful information, though slightly verbose for a short tool description.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, error behavior, and success semantics, providing sufficient context for a user. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still hints at the output via 'kOK' and advises verification.

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?

The description fully explains each parameter: notes format with examples, duration allowed values, and as_chord behavior. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions (0% coverage), adding significant meaning beyond the input 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Input notes at the caret' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like add_rest and transpose by focusing on note input at the caret position.

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 usage context (adding pitches at the caret) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude other tools. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance, though the purpose is clear.

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