midi_insert_program_change

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that Bank Select (CC0/CC32) is written before the Program Change, one tick apart to prevent reordering, and notes the 0-based vs UI display conventions. However, it does not specify whether existing program change events are overwritten, appended, or if there are side effects on other MIDI data, leaving a small gap in transparency.

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 moderately long but efficiently structured, with an engaging opening paragraph and a clear Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and usage rationale before diving into parameter details. While some sentences add context, they serve to clarify edge cases (e.g., bank select ordering), and nothing is redundant or wasteful.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all required aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral nuances (ordering of bank select). It even references a related tool (midi_list_programs) to guide the agent, making it comprehensive enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates with a detailed Args list. Every parameter is explained with meaning and constraints: track_index and item_index are 0-based, channel is 0-15, program is 0-127, position is in seconds, and bank_msb/lsb are optional with ranges. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema titles.

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 a specific verb ('Insert') and a clear resource ('MIDI Program Change'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like midi_insert_note and midi_insert_cc by focusing on program change events. It also explicitly names an alternative verification tool (midi_list_programs), making the purpose unambiguous and easily differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: for emulating classic hardware switch sounds where the program list is inert through the FX preset selector, and suggests checking with midi_list_programs for available programs. It also clearly explains the optional Bank Select behavior and ordering, giving the agent actionable context.

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