generate_bassline

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely says 'add it to a clip' without explaining overwrite behavior, non-determinism of generation, or prerequisites like existing clips. It doesn't state whether existing notes are preserved or if the tool requires a pre-created clip. The mutation implications are under-specified.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence action summary followed by a clear parameter list with brief, useful explanations. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and parameters but lacks critical context: whether it returns a status, what happens if the target clip is missing, or whether generated notes overwrite existing content. It's minimally adequate but leaves functional gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: track_index (bass track), clip_index (clip slot), root (with MIDI example), scale_type (listing valid options), and length (unit beats). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema titles, though it omits bounds or edge-case behavior.

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 'Generate a bassline pattern and add it to a clip' clearly states the action (generate and add), the resource (bassline pattern in a clip), and differentiates from sibling tools like generate_drum_pattern. The specific musical context is 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_notes_to_clip or generate_drum_pattern. The only hint is 'track_index should be a bass track', which is a parameter constraint rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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