gen_emit_chord_progression

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

No annotations exist, so the description should reveal behaviors. It does not mention that clear_first defaults to true, implying destructive writes. It omits details on voicing, chord interpretation, or side effects like channel selection.

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 short sentence, which is concise but insufficient. It could include a second sentence summarizing key parameters without becoming verbose. The structure is minimal.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how the progression is built, what musical rules apply, or what the AI can expect in return. The agent has no guidance on parameter effects or usage constraints.

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%, and the description adds zero parameter intent. It does not explain what 'progression', 'root', 'scale', 'chord_length_bars', 'octave_shift', 'pattern', or 'clear_first' mean or how they affect output. The description is completely silent on parameters.

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 action (write), the resource (chord progression), and the target (channel's piano roll). It distinguishes well from siblings like gen_emit_arpeggio or piano_roll_add_chord.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as piano_roll_add_chord, gen_chord_notes, or other gen_emit_* tools. The description assumes the agent will infer context.

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