rewrite_cc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns that malformed entries are skipped silently and that the success flag can be misleading ('ccs_inserted: 0'), advising to check that count. It also notes limitations like the absence of curve templates and that resolution is up to the user. These details go beyond what any annotation could provide.

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 well-structured with an opening summary, a brief how-to note, and a labeled Args section. Every sentence contributes value, including the warning about malformed entries. The length is appropriate given the complexity of the JSON parameter and the need to convey edge cases.

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?

The description covers most necessary context: explicit CC points, range parameters, and the silent-failure behavior. It mentions a 'success' flag and 'ccs_inserted' count, hinting at the return structure, but does not fully specify the return value or explicitly state that existing CC in the range are removed. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the return format and replacement semantics would make it 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly compensates. It explains the `tracks` parameter with an example JSON structure, clarifies that position is in seconds, allows 'all' as a value, and describes the silent-skip behavior. It also defines start_time and end_time as seconds. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 tool's function: 'Replace CC automation in a time range, leaving notes untouched.' It uses a specific verb ('replace') with a defined resource ('CC automation in a time range') and explicitly distinguishes itself from note operations, which sets it apart from sibling tools like midi_insert_cc or midi_delete_cc.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to replace CC automation within a specified time range without affecting notes. It also gives practical guidance on how to construct curves (explicit CC points, no templates) and includes an example. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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