cw_transpose_plan

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does the most important part: it explicitly declares non-execution ('...rather than pretending to run it') and names the actor responsible for the actual writes. It also discloses that transpose needs no CakeScript/free licence and that the plan includes a commit-verification step. It does not say what the plan object looks like concretely, though it sketches its contents.

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, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by the differentiator and the non-execution caveat. No filler; the licence remark earns its place because it tells the agent no CakeScript is required.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema planning tool with no annotations, the description covers what matters: it is a plan generator, what the plan contains, that it does not execute, and how success is proven. The only real gap is the concrete shape of the returned plan, which an agent will discover on first call.

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 both parameters (semitones sign semantics, wholeTones/全音数) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only a loose reference to 'which 移调 dialog fields to write' and no interval formatting or validation guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: it produces "the exact plan for a transpose" — which dialog fields to write and with which values. It also carves out a niche against the many other note tools by noting transpose is the pitch-changing note operation. It stops short of naming a specific sibling (e.g. cw_midi_note or cw_quantize_plan) as the contrasting alternative.

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?

It makes the key usage point that the caller is not to expect execution — a computer-use runtime performs the writes, this tool only states the plan. But it gives no explicit trigger condition ('call this before X') and no named alternative such as the corresponding run/execute tool, so the agent must infer when to reach for it.

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