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

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It details exactly what each mode does to notes (e.g., 'move every other note up by spread_octaves octaves') and lists return values (original pitches, new pitches, mode used, chord size). No contradictions.

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: summary, mode explanations, parameters, examples. It is somewhat lengthy but every section adds value. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 4 modes and chord transformation complexity, the description covers purpose, mode mechanics, parameter roles, return values, and an example. With output schema present, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description explains mode (4 options with details), chord_position (beat position), and spread_octaves (range and default). It does not explain unit_index, track_index, or region_index, but these are common DAW identifiers likely understood from context.

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: 'Spread or compact a chord voicing — open vs close harmony.' It specifies the action (transform spacing) and resource (chord tones at a beat position), and is distinct from sibling tools like create_comping or invert_chord_notes.

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?

Each mode (open, close, drop2, drop3) is explained with its musical effect and typical use cases, e.g., 'Classic jazz piano voicing technique' for drop2. The example shows concrete usage. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use.

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