plan_scale_chord_progression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe planning operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it depends on the current Live key and scale, produces exact notes, and guarantees deterministic voice leading. It also enumerates supported articulation types, which the annotations do not cover.

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: the first front-loads the verb, object, and context, and the second gives a compact feature list. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, a nested articulation object, four modes, and optional recipe/function/bass arrays) and the lack of an output schema, the description is thin: it does not state what a 'plan' returns, how it relates to create_scale_chord_progression_clip, or any preconditions beyond the current key and scale. The schema and annotations cover some mechanics and side effects, so the description is adequate but leaves the integration workflow to 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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, important parameters like minPitch, maxPitch, voiceLeading, and articulation.mode lack dedicated descriptions, and the description partially compensates by introducing 'bounded register,' 'grid-locked pulses,' 'block chords,' and 'deterministic voice leading.' However, the mapping is indirect and several parameters such as velocity, notesPerChord, and startBeats/chordBeats are not clarified. The schema still carries much of the burden.

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 first sentence names a concrete deliverable ('Plan exact MIDI notes') and a clear resource scope ('scale-degree chord progression in the current Live key and scale'). The listed capabilities further narrow the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as create_scale_chord_progression_clip or plan_midi_diatonic_harmony, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use when planning chord-progression notes in the active key and scale and enumerates supported modes. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative tools or conditions that should route to a sibling. This is adequate implicit guidance, not explicit selection criteria.

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