generate_and_place_chords

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

The description lacks behavioral details beyond the basic function. It does not explain side effects such as overwriting existing clip content (despite a 'replace_existing' parameter) or whether the tool creates a new clip. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 but the structure is uneven: a clear one-liner followed by a bullet-like list of three parameters. The most important parameters (progression, voicing) are covered, but the list is incomplete and not front-loaded with the most crucial info.

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's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It covers the core purpose but fails to explain the majority of parameters and their interrelationships, making it hard for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.

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?

Only three of twelve parameters (progression, voicing, bars_per_chord) are explained in the description. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it omits critical parameters like track_index, slot_index, key, scale, length_bars, and replace_existing.

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 action ('generate a chord progression and place it into a MIDI clip') and explicitly distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning chord generation specifically, unlike arpeggio, bassline, or melody 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'generate_and_place_arpeggio' or 'generate_and_place_bassline'. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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