add_live_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect: consecutive calls on the same measure append notes because the cursor advances. However, it does not mention prerequisites like an active live connection, failure behavior, or whether the operation can be undone.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a key behavioral note, then a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and the parameter documentation is not padded.

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 all parameters and the most important behavioral nuance. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. The main gap is the absence of explicit connection prerequisites or error conditions, but overall it is nearly complete for a straightforward insertion tool.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: 1-indexed measure, MIDI pitch with middle C reference, duration numerator/denominator with quarter-note example, and 0-indexed staff with defaults. This adds meaning far beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('a note'), and a precise location ('at the start of a measure in the live score'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_live_dynamic or add_live_chord_symbol.

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 purpose implies when to use it, and the cursor-advance note gives useful behavioral context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. An agent must rely on sibling names rather than direct routing instructions.

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