plan_scale_bassline

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

The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It adds 'deterministic,' 'scale-aware,' reliance on the 'current Live key,' and the exact note-placement behavior ('Places roots... on explicit straight or triplet grid steps'). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the pitch-pattern and grid-step behavior.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core planning behavior but leaves important context implicit: what the tool returns, how the plan is consumed, and how it relates to the create_scale_bassline_clip sibling. The schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the description alone would not fully prepare an agent to use the tool correctly in all intended workflows.

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 60%, so the description does not need to compensate for a totally opaque schema. It adds useful meaning by mapping pitchPattern variants to musical outcomes and tying degrees to progression degrees in the current key. However, it does not clarify several parameters like gate, velocity, minPitch/maxPitch, or activeSteps beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Plan') and a specific resource ('deterministic scale-aware bassline from progression degrees in the current Live key'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plan_scale_melody and create_scale_bassline_clip. It also names the three musical output variants (roots, root-octave motion, roots with diatonic fifth), making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 usage context: you would call this when you have progression degrees in the current Live key and want a bassline plan. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not distinguish itself from related planning/creation tools such as plan_scale_melody or create_scale_bassline_clip.

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