midi_insert_cc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Insert' but does not mention what happens if an existing CC event occupies the same position, whether the event is added to an existing sorted list, or any error/return behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the main action. The Args block is organized and each line provides distinct, non-redundant information. No filler words or repetition.

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 simple single-event insert, the description covers purpose, all parameter semantics, and alternatives. It does not mention return value, but there is no output schema and the tool likely returns nothing. Minor gap: no statement about prerequisites like an existing MIDI item or active take, but the parameter list makes this inferable.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description fully compensates by listing every parameter with type, range, or unit: track_index 0-based, channel 0-15, cc_number 0-127, cc_value 0-127, position in Seconds. This gives the agent all necessary semantic details.

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 starts with 'Insert single CC event', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tools by contrasting with rewrite_cc/compose_arrangement for whole curves, and the name itself matches the action.

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?

Explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'For whole curves use the `ccs` array of rewrite_cc or compose_arrangement.' This gives clear context and names alternatives, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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