midi

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that times are absolute project beats, that 'replace' rewrites the whole take in one undo step, and that 'add' only appends. It still omits return format, failure behavior, and permission or track-index prerequisites.

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: the resource and action list come first, followed by key behavioral distinctions. The telegraphic style packs a lot into a few lines without wasted sentences, though some phrasing is terse enough to be slightly cryptic.

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 13-parameter, seven-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most important action semantics and a few behavioral traits. It is not complete enough to guide correct use of many parameters or to explain return values, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 13 parameters. It explains the 'action' enum values, gives partial meaning to 'ccs' (cc + value, program) and 'start_beats' (absolute project beats), and notes 'get' defaults for index/channel/muted. But it leaves 'pitch', 'velocity', 'length_beats', 'item_index', 'note_index', 'note_indices', and 'track_index' unexplained.

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 states the resource ('MIDI on a track item') and enumerates all seven supported actions, so an agent can understand the tool's domain. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like item or track, but the MIDI-specific scope is clear enough.

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 provides useful guidance for choosing between 'replace' and 'add' (replace rewrites the whole take, add only appends), and explains how 'cc' inserts controller or program-change data. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'item' tool, nor any prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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