midi_insert_note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It adds parameter ranges (channel 0-15, pitch 0-127) and clarifies pitch mapping (60=C4). However, it lacks details on prerequisites (item must be MIDI), side effects (overwrites existing?), or error behavior.

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 paragraphs with a clear first sentence and a concise list of arguments. No redundant text; each sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given 6 required params and no output schema, the description provides parameter ranges but misses usage context (item existence, failure cases, return value). It is adequate for simple insertion but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description adds value by specifying ranges and units (seconds for positions, pitch mapping). But it doesn't explain parameter meaning beyond the name (e.g., velocity impact).

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 clearly states the action (Insert single note), resource (existing item), and distinguishes from compose_arrangement. It contrasts with sibling tool midi_insert_notes_batch, which inserts multiple notes.

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 description says 'For composing use compose_arrangement,' providing an alternative usage. However, it does not explicitly compare with other MIDI note tools like midi_insert_notes_batch for multi-note scenarios.

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