progression_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the return format, constraining end_cadence to four options, explaining allow_borrowed's modal interchange behavior with concrete chords, and stating that style biases the chord palette. It does not mention determinism/seed behavior or explicit side-effect safety, but the generative nature is clear.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and packs useful constraints into the second sentence without wasted words. The notation is compact yet readable.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. It covers the output shape and three parameter behaviors, but leaves allowed values for root/mode, the meaning of length_chords, and the effect of seed and octave unexplained.

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, but it only explains end_cadence, allow_borrowed, and style. root and mode are only glossed as 'key and mode', while length_chords, seed, and octave receive no semantic explanation. Five of eight parameters remain underspecified.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it invents a chord progression in a key and mode, and further specifies the exact return shape as a list of chord dicts with five named keys. This clearly differentiates it from sibling theory/analysis tools like theory_chord_progression or theory_cadences.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as theory_chord_progression, compose_variations, or melody_generate. The word 'Invent' implies generation, and the return format suggests a standalone generator, but no when/when-not criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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