midi_set_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that -1 keeps the current value, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it auto-updates the item), required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. This is insufficient 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 front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the 7 parameters.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover prerequisites and outcomes. It explains parameters well but omits what the tool returns (e.g., success indicator), how to obtain valid indices, and any workflow context. For a MIDI editing tool, this is moderately complete but lacking in overall context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by specifying ranges (pitch 0-127, velocity 1-127, channel 0-15) and the meaning of -1. However, it does not clarify what 'note_index' or 'item_index' refer to, nor whether start/end positions are relative to the item. These gaps prevent a score of 5.

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 'Edit existing note' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like midi_insert_note (create) and midi_delete_note (delete). The verb 'edit' and resource 'existing note' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for modifying an existing note, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like midi_insert_note or midi_delete_note. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are stated, leaving usage guidance implicit.

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