create_chord_progression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: a MIDI item is created and notes are laid back-to-back starting at start_sec. It does not say whether an existing item is replaced, whether the track must already exist, what happens on an out-of-range root or invalid type, or what is returned.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the chord-format payload spec and a closing note about note placement. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tricky chords structure well but omits track_index meaning, replacement/overwrite behavior, and success feedback. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 must compensate, and it largely does for the complex parameter: it documents the chord object shape, root range with the C=0 convention, the full type enum, duration_qn units, and the octave default of 4. Only track_index semantics (position in list_tracks ordering) are left unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: builds a chord progression on a track, creating a MIDI item with one chord per entry. The phrase 'Convenience' implies it is a higher-level wrapper over the raw MIDI tools, but it never names insert_midi_item or insert_midi_notes, so sibling differentiation is only inferable.

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 word 'Convenience' and 'from scratch' imply this is the shortcut path when you want a whole progression rather than placing notes individually, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (insert_midi_item / insert_midi_notes) is given.

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