write_arrangement_notes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a disconnect reports confirmed chunks plus the ambiguous in-flight range, resending is never automatic, and the call is explicitly not a transaction or rollback. Those are operationally important traits not encoded in annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The only deduction is that the compressed terminology ('receipts', 'Session detour', 'Live transaction') costs some immediate readability.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not needed, and the description covers the failure/disconnect case well. Its main gap is that the write target (arrangement clip) is left entirely to the schema rather than stated in prose.

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 100%, so pitch/duration/velocity ranges, the mode enum, and the confirm semantics are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 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 verb is 'write' and the object is loosely 'MIDI chunks', but the description never names the actual resource — an arrangement MIDI clip — which only appears in the parameter schema. Jargon like 'bounded MIDI chunks' and 'receipts and read-back' obscures rather than clarifies, and it doesn't distinguish itself from close siblings such as write_clip_notes or write_drum_clip.

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?

There is an implicit hint of when to prefer this ('without a Session detour'), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling write tools. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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