insert_midi_events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it discloses the time reference frame (seconds relative to item start) and channel range (0..15), which are genuine behavioral facts. It does not say whether this mutates existing items, what permissions are needed, or what a dry_run returns, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated write tool.

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 tight sentences, none wasted, with the core action front-loaded. The 'drum-apparatus goldenrule' phrase is terse to the point of being cryptic, but the overall density is appropriate.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an events array typed only as bare objects, the description does not supply enough to call it correctly. The critical unknown, the shape of each event object, is left entirely to the agent while the rest of the surface is undocumented.

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 42%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it defines the time basis for start_seconds/length_seconds and enumerates the event kinds for the completely undocumented events array. It adds nothing for fx_guid, fx_index, fx_scope, fx_name_contains, or track selection, and the events item structure remains opaque.

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 and resource ('Create a MIDI item') plus the content types it accepts (notes, CC, pitch bend, program changes), which implicitly separates it from insert_midi_file and insert_groove. It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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 only conditional guidance is 'For drums, enforce drum-apparatus goldenrule before sending,' which is a narrow precondition and refers to an unnamed external concept. There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of insert_midi_file, insert_groove, or insert_riff.

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