add_chord_progression

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool overwrites existing notes, what happens if the clip doesn't exist, or any error behavior. It only states it writes chords into the clip, leaving behavioral expectations unclear.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input details well but lacks information on return value, error handling, and whether the operation is additive or destructive. This is adequate but leaves gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: target clip, chords with examples (e.g., ['Cm', 'Fm', 'G7']), rhythm with possible values, and defaults for octave and velocity. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 description clearly states it writes a chord progression into an existing MIDI clip, with specific parameter examples like chord symbols and rhythm values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip, which is more general.

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 specifies that the clip must already exist and explicitly recommends using create_clip_with_notes in the same call, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not compare with alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or mention when not to use this tool.

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