Reharmonize a progression. Techniques: tritone_sub, ii_v_insertion, modal_interchange, diminished_passing, secondary_dominant, chain_of_dominants, coltrane_changes, backdoor (or auto).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| technique | No | ||
| progression | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a list of techniques, which is useful, but it does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not explain the return format, what 'auto' does, or how the transformation is applied.
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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a clear, enumerative list for techniques. No redundant or repetitive wording. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool has moderate complexity, and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema. The description lacks details on return values, progression format, or the meaning of techniques like 'coltrane_changes'. It provides the essential purpose and options but is not comprehensive enough for correct invocation without additional 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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the 'technique' parameter by listing valid values, and 'progression' is implied via the main action. However, the 'key' parameter is entirely undocumented, and the format of 'progression' (e.g., chord symbols) is not specified. Partial compensation but significant gaps remain.
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 purpose: 'Reharmonize a progression.' The verb 'reharmonize' is specific and the resource 'progression' is explicit. The list of techniques distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_chord or resolve_chord, making the tool's unique function clear.
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 reharmonizing chord progressions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_chord or generate_voicing. It lists techniques but offers no guidance on choosing between them or when not to use the tool. Context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
analyze_chord, resolve_chord, and generate_voicing all operate on chord content and can easily be confused without reading the full descriptions. conduct_band is a clear outlier, while only reharmonize has a distinctly separate purpose.
Most tools follow a clean verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_chord, resolve_chord, generate_voicing, and conduct_band. reharmonize breaks the pattern by being a bare verb, but the naming style is otherwise predictable.
Five tools is a reasonable size for a focused server and avoids tool overload. However, conduct_band feels like it belongs in a separate arranging/conductor server rather than a chord intelligence server, which slightly weakens the set's focus.
The core chord-intelligence tasks are covered: analysis, resolution, voicing, and reharmonization. Missing obvious operations like chord inversion, transposition, or progression generation create noticeable gaps, and audio rendering is explicitly delegated elsewhere.