build_full_arrangement

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses basic behavior (creates tracks, fills with generated content) and mentions 'from scratch,' but lacks details on prerequisites, effect on existing tracks, or output format.

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?

Three sentences efficiently convey core purpose and one parameter. Could be more structured but is not verbose.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description is minimal for a complex 5-parameter tool. It doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how style/key/tempo affect generation) or whether it overwrites existing content, leaving significant gaps for effective use.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaning only to 'sections' (list, defaults). Other parameters (style, key, tempo, bars_per_section) are not described beyond their defaults and titles, leaving significant gaps.

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 it builds a complete multi-track arrangement from scratch, creating tracks for melody, chords, bass, and drums, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_and_place_melody or generate_and_place_bassline that focus on single parts.

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 usage for generating a full song structure, calling it 'the most powerful generation command,' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it, e.g., for single part generation.

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