add_scale_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the generation process: 'Generates ascending/descending notes from the chosen scale, packed into the [start_beat, end_beat) range with note_duration per note.' It discloses the mutation behavior (writing into an existing clip) and parameter interactions, though side effects like overwriting are not mentioned.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clear, but slight redundancy exists (e.g., listing defaults already in schema). The structure is good but could be streamlined further.

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 9 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, parameter roles, and generation behavior. It does not address edge cases like exceeding clip length or overwriting notes, but overall it provides sufficient context for correct tool usage.

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 description coverage, the description fully compensates by adding meaning: examples for scale ('C minor'), explanation of direction options, note_duration default, octave meaning, velocity range, and how parameters combine to fill the time range. This adds high value beyond the 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Write a scalar run (sequence of notes from a scale) into an existing clip.' It specifies the action, resource, and distinguishes from siblings like add_notes_to_clip or add_chord_progression by focusing on scale-based runs.

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 use for adding a scale run, and the examples like 'C minor' help clarify. It does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context from sibling tools suggests appropriate scenarios. Minor improvement would be adding conditional guidance.

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