generate_and_place_arpeggio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the pattern options and note duration but fails to disclose critical behaviors such as the 'replace_existing' default of true, the requirement for 'track_index' and 'slot_index', or any side effects like overwriting existing clip contents.

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 very short (4 lines) and front-loaded with a clear purpose. It uses a bullet-like list for parameter details, which is efficient. However, it omits many parameters entirely, which is not conciseness but under-specification.

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 the tool has 12 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers 3 parameters and does not explain the output or required parameters. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool for all use cases.

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?

The description adds meaningful detail for only 3 of 12 parameters: pattern (lists options), note_duration (gives example values in beats), and octave_range (states range 1-3). The other 9 parameters, including required ones like track_index and slot_index, are completely undocumented. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'Generate' and resource 'arpeggio pattern', and specifies the output action 'place it into a MIDI clip'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_and_place_bassline' by naming the specific pattern type. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling generation tools (e.g., generate_and_place_melody, generate_and_place_chords). It does not mention any prerequisites or contexts where alternative tools would be more appropriate.

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