write_melody

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the write-and-overwrite nature is signaled structurally. The description adds the useful encoding contract but does not mention that the replace parameter defaults to true (i.e., existing clip notes are wiped), nor the velocity/octave defaults, which is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the encoding rule, with no filler. The scale enumeration is long but earns its place because the schema supplies no enum, though it could be formatted more scannably.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotation covers the destructive profile. However, for a 9-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key semantics (replace default, velocity, root/octave relationship to degrees, track/clip addressing) undocumented.

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% across nine parameters, so the description carries real weight and does explain three of them well: degrees (with 0 = rest, 8 = octave), rhythm (durations in beats), and scale (by enumerating all valid scale names, compensating for the missing enum). The remaining six parameters — root, octave, velocity, replace, track_index, clip_index — receive no explanation at all.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Write a melody") and immediately defines the degree encoding (1 = root, 8 = octave up, 0 = rest), which is the core mental model for the tool. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as generate_melody or write_bassline, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the degree/rhythm explanation, which tells the caller how to express a melody rather than when to choose this tool. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this deterministic degree-based writer over generate_melody, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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