cw_midi_cc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose side effects, port requirements, real-time mutability, error behavior, or whether the live port must already be enabled.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by useful CC examples. No wasted wording.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves channel behavior, value meaning, and operational prerequisites 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains controller examples like cc 7 and cc 10 but omits the channel parameter entirely and does not clarify value semantics beyond the schema's numeric range.

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: send a MIDI control change on the live port. It distinguishes itself from note/chord siblings by naming control change, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from cw_midi_send.

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 live-port target and cc examples (7 = volume, 10 = pan) imply usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus cw_midi_send, cw_set_volume, or cw_set_pan.

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