plan_scale_melody

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that it is read-only. It adds value by explaining that 'Omitted steps are rests' and 'motifs can repeat deterministically,' which clarifies the behavior. However, it does not mention output format or any side effects beyond planning, which the annotations already suggest.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then adds key behavioral details. Every clause contributes meaning without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with 9 required parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how events map to grid steps, the role of repeats and motifBars, or the meaning of min/maxPitch. An agent would struggle to correctly fill in many required parameters without additional context.

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 only 44%. Parameters like grid, repeats, maxPitch, minPitch, and motifBars have no schema descriptions. The description mentions 'straight or triplet grid' but does not explain the other undocumented parameters. It adds minimal value over the schema and fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving crucial details unclear.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Plan an explicit scale-degree melody in the current Live key and meter on a straight or triplet grid.' It names the specific resource (scale-degree melody) and distinguishes it from siblings like plan_scale_bassline or create_scale_melody_clip by emphasizing the planning aspect and grid options.

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 this is for planning rather than creating (as in create_scale_melody_clip), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions grid types, but no guidance on choosing between planning tools or the relationship to other melody-related tools.

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