add_interval

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the important behavior that the operation applies to every note in the given set and constructs a chord rather than a single note, but it says nothing about mutation/reversibility, what happens with an invalid interval string, or what the tool returns.

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?

A single sentence with the operation front-loaded and the examples inline where they are needed; nothing precedes the core statement. The example list is long but each value adds real syntax information, so little is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say more: the effect of the operation, the meaning of 'flow', and error behavior for unrecognized interval strings are all absent. The core semantics of the main parameter are covered adequately, so it is usable but incomplete.

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. It does this well for 'interval', giving concrete syntax examples ('3', '-3', 'maj3', 'min6 below', 'p5', 'octave'), and 'each given note' implies event_ids are the targets. The third parameter, 'flow', is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it adds a note at an interval to each supplied note, producing a chord. That is clearly distinct from the sibling add_notes, which inserts notes rather than deriving a harmony from existing ones. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Use is only implied by the phrase 'making a chord' – the reader can infer this is the tool for harmonizing existing notes rather than entering new ones. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the notes must already exist), and no routing to a sibling.

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