check_voice_leading

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by enumerating the exact musical rules enforced (parallel fifths/octaves, hidden octaves, crossings, spacing, leading tones/sevenths) and by stating the asymmetric behavior of the two modes. It still does not say whether the realization is returned or inserted into the project, nor what the output looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences: the domain is stated first, then the two mode behaviors are contrasted. No filler, and the most important framing information is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description does partially compensate by describing what each mode returns. But for a three-parameter, zero-required tool it omits key behaviors: whether an omitted 'key' is inferred, whether 'chords' and 'voicings' are mutually exclusive, and whether the generated realization is written into the project or just returned — a meaningful ambiguity next to siblings like add_midi_notes.

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 100%, and each parameter carries a formatting example ('A minor', 'F# dorian'; voicings low-to-high). The description reinforces the chords-vs-voicings distinction but adds no syntax or constraint detail the schema lacks, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific domain (common-practice voice leading) and states exactly what the tool produces in each mode: an SATB realization from chords, or a rule-violation list from voicings. It is clearly separable from harmony siblings like analyze_harmony or harmonize_melody, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through input-type branching — pass 'chords' to generate, pass 'voicings' to check — which is genuinely helpful. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over the other harmony tools, no prerequisites, and no handling of what happens if both or neither are supplied.

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