compose_from_primitives

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful behavior: genre selects drum patterns, bass feels, and mix-balance reference, and energy_curve drives velocity scaling. But it does not disclose side effects, whether the song is rendered/saved, or what happens in the DAW beyond composition.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and no filler. The long primitive list is somewhat heavy but earns its place because it clarifies what the tool wires together.

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 8-parameter composition tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits output/return behavior, out_path semantics, and any comparison to the many sibling compose tools. It provides a partial picture but leaves important operational gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains genre and energy_curve, but says nothing about the required out_path or the meaning of root, mode, seed, tempo, and target_seconds. Most parameters remain dependent on their names and defaults.

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 — building a song bottom-up from composition primitives — and identifies the exact primitives involved. This distinguishes it from both individual primitive generators and the higher-level compose_* sibling 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?

It implies a use case: when you want a song assembled from primitives rather than generated as a single higher-level action. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over compose_synthwave_generative, compose_variations, or the other compose siblings, and it offers no exclusion criteria.

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