piano_roll_write_notes

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it is a write operation. However, the description adds nothing else—no explanation of what is destroyed, side effects, or the meaning of 'report hotkey dispatch honestly.' It fails to provide behavioral context beyond what annotations already convey.

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 two cryptic sentences that do not front-load the core purpose. Phrases like 'report hotkey dispatch honestly' are ambiguous and add confusion rather than clarity. It is not concise in a helpful way.

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 tool with 5 parameters including a complex notes array, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the effect (writing notes), the meaning of mode/append/replace, the role of auto_trigger, or target selection. Schema describes parameters but the overall operation is unclear. The description fails to make the tool usable without guessing.

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%—all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter semantics. Baseline is 3 because the schema handles documentation, and the description offers no further value.

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 focuses on internal mechanics ('Generate a typed Piano Roll script, select its target, and report hotkey dispatch honestly') rather than the user-facing action of writing notes. The tool name implies writing notes, but the description does not clearly state that, and it could be mistaken for a scripting utility. It is not a tautology but is vague and does not specify the resource being modified.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like piano_roll_read_notes or piano_roll_transform. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or appropriate scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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