create_scale_melody_clip

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals the dual plan/execute mode ('Plan or create'), the precondition of an 'empty Session clip,' and that 'native execution verifies every generated note.' It also hints at state binding ('Binds Live key, meter, grid, destination, and state'), although this phrasing is somewhat cryptic.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds behavioral specificity about native execution and state binding. Every clause earns its place.

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 16-parameter, mutating tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the dry-run/confirmation-token flow (despite 'Plan or create' hinting at it), what the tool returns, how to obtain the required trackId/clipId/expectedStateVersion, or how it relates to sibling planning tools like plan_scale_melody.

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 coverage is 69%, leaving five parameters without descriptions (grid, repeats, maxPitch, minPitch, motifBars). The tool description does not clarify these undocumented parameters; it only broadly mentions 'grid' and 'scale-degree' without explaining values, defaults, or relationships. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Plan or create one exact scale-degree melody in an empty Session clip.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying 'scale-degree melody' and 'empty Session clip,' making it easy to tell apart from bassline, chord, and other clip-creation tools.

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 the tool is for creating or planning a scale-degree melody in an empty Session clip, which provides some contextual guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of related tools like plan_scale_melody, create_scale_bassline_clip, or create_midi_clip, and it offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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