generate_bassline

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

The description discloses several important behaviors: 'creates the clip if empty', 'notes are stretched so there are no silent gaps' for continuous, 'root note for each bar is deduced from the lowest note sounding', and 'progression ignored if follow_track_index is given'. It does not mention overwrite behavior, return values, or error conditions, but given no annotations, it provides substantial transparency.

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 with a concise lead sentence followed by a clear parameter list. It is relatively long but justified by 13 parameters and the need to explain complex constraints. Each line earns its place, with no fluff.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core algorithm, parameter semantics, and modes. However, it omits return value/response format, whether existing notes are overwritten, and potential error scenarios (e.g., no harmony found). This is a notable gap but the description is still much more complete than typical.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains all 13 parameters with meaningful detail: style enum values, progression format, octave convention (C3 == MIDI 60), mutual exclusivity constraints (exactly one of clip_index/arrangement_start), and the meaning of follow_clip_index/follow_arrangement_clip_index. This goes far beyond raw schema.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Write a bassline that follows the harmony of another track's clip, or a given chord progression, in a genre-appropriate style.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement that differentiates it from siblings like generate_chord_progression and generate_drum_pattern.

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 by explaining the two modes (follow_track_index or progression) and the style parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., manually adding notes or using other generators). There is no exclusion or comparison guidance, so it is a clear context without explicit when/when-not advice.

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