create_scale_bassline_clip

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

The description adds some useful behavior beyond annotations: 'native execution verifies every generated note' and the requirement of 'an exact empty Session clip.' However, it does not disclose the plan/execute sequencing, the single-use confirmation token requirement, or what happens if the clip is not empty. Since readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false are present, the safety profile is partly covered, but the state-changing semantics remain under-explained.

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 compact at two sentences and front-loads the core action and target. The second sentence is dense jargon that lists concepts without explanation, but it is still efficient and not padded. It earns a strong score for conciseness despite some loss of clarity.

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?

With 17 parameters, a plan/execute split, and no output schema, this description is too short to be complete. It never mentions that a dry run must precede execution, that planHash and confirmationToken are required for the non-dry-run mode, or what the returned plan/confirmation looks like. The schema carries most of the burden, but the description leaves critical orchestration details implicit.

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 76%, so most parameters carry their own meaning. The description adds only a high-level conceptual grouping ('key, progression, rhythm, register, destination, state version') without mapping to actual parameter names or explaining interactions like stepBeats dividing chordBeats. This is adequate but not additive enough to exceed the baseline.

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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Plan or create one scale-aware bassline in an exact empty Session clip.' It identifies the artifact type (bassline, not melody or chord progression) and the destination, which helps distinguish it from siblings like create_scale_melody_clip. It does not explicitly name a differentiating sibling, so it loses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as plan_scale_bassline or create_scale_melody_clip. The 'Plan or create' phrasing hints at two modes, but the description does not explain the dry-run-then-confirm flow or when each mode is appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the schema fields like dryRun and confirmationToken.

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