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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by enumerating specific reharmonization techniques (tritone_sub, ii_v_insertion, etc.), informing the agent about the transformations applied. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single sentence followed by a colon-separated list, which is concise and front-loaded. It packs essential information efficiently, though a more structured format could improve readability.
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 the three parameters, no output schema, and the need to understand input/output formats, the description is insufficient. It omits what the tool returns, how to format the progression, and the role of the key parameter.
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 has zero description coverage for the three parameters. The description partially compensates by listing possible values for 'technique', but does not explain 'key' or the format of 'progression' items, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 uses a specific verb 'Reharmonize' and identifies the resource as 'a progression'. It explicitly lists reharmonization techniques, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools (analyze_chord, generate_voicing, resolve_chord) which focus on different aspects.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings. The list of techniques implies some context but fails to provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation—analysis, resolution, voicing, reharmonization, and arrangement—and the descriptions clarify the boundaries well. The closest pair is analyze_chord and resolve_chord, both d chord-input tools, but one yields abstract theory (intervals, roman numerals) while the other yields concrete data (frequencies, MIDI, scales).
The set follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: analyze_chord, conduct_band, generate_voicing, resolve_chord. The lone deviation is reharmonize, a single verb with no explicit object, which breaks the pattern slightly but remains perfectly readable.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a domain-specific server. Each tool covers a distinct facet of harmonic work—analysis, realization, voicing, reharmonization, and arrangement—and none feels like filler.
The surface covers the core chord-intelligence lifecycle: parse, realize, voice, and transform chords, plus full arrangement via conduct_band. Minor gaps exist—there is no progression-analysis tool and no inversion-specific operation—but agents can work around them.