plan_midi_diatonic_chord_quality

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds capability detail ('Supports per-onset functions, recipes, inversions, voicing modes, and explicit scale-degree slash basses') but does not describe behavioral traits such as what a 'plan' produces, whether it returns a structure to be passed to another tool, or any side–effects. With annotations covering the main safety behavior, this is an adequate but not enriched score.

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 sentences and front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no redundant filler, and it packs a dense list of supported features efficiently. Minor terminology may be jargon-heavy but does not bloat the text, so it earns a 4.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema. The description omits what a 'plan' outputs (e.g., a plan object, a selection of notes, or data to feed into an apply_ tool), how parameter combinations like chordSize vs chordSizes work, and when to use it relative to sibling plan_/apply_ tools. The description is not fully adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional inference.

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 91%, and most parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description only summarizes parameter categories ('per-onset functions, recipes, inversions, voicing modes, and explicit scale-degree slash basses') without adding semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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: 'Plan complete selected onsets as scale-native, secondary-dominant, parallel-minor borrowed, suspended, added-tone, or altered-dominant voicings.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and lists supported harmonic qualitiescars. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apply_midi_diatonic_chord_quality or plan_scale_chord_progression, so it's clear but not fully distinguished.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_midi_diatonic_chord_quality or plan_scaled_chord_progression. It does not mention whether it should be used before an apply step, nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites. The only hints are the word 'plan' and the read-only annotation, which are indirect.

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