generate_notes

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

Annotations declare destructive=true/non-idempotent, and the description earns credit on top by specifying exactly what gets destroyed per mode (replace_span vs replace_all vs additive add), that the whole operation is one undo step, that dry_run previews, and that the result warns if music overruns the clip's loop end.

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 core action and undo behavior, then parameters in backticked order. Dense but almost every clause carries actionable information; the generator-name roster and parenthetical examples add some bulk.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates with the dry_run preview hint and the loop-overrun warning. Prerequisites, help discovery, modes, and offset semantics are all covered; only a fuller account of the return payload (e.g. created note count or error shapes) is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the terse schema strings: start_time is measured in beats and offsets everything, mode semantics are spelled out, and address is tied to the required clip prerequisite. `expect` is left to the schema alone.

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 (compose notes), the target resource (a MIDI clip), and the distinguishing mechanism (from a generator, in one undo step). The enumerated generator list makes it clearly distinct from plain note-writing siblings like write_notes or edit_notes without needing to name them.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites and routing: create the clip first via `create kind midi_clip`, and use generator 'help' to discover parameters. Explains the mode choices and when each applies. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over write_notes/edit_notes, so no exclusion guidance.

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