reharmonize

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description does add useful behavior beyond annotations: it keeps the progression length and returns explanations for each change. It omits any note on determinism (the seed param is undocumented in the description) 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that conveys purpose, the invariant (length preserved), and the output (explains each change). Efficient with no filler, though it packs three clauses and could be marginally tighter.

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?

For a compute-style tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essence of the return (reharmonization plus explanations), but leaves usage routing entirely implicit and never mentions the seed/chord vocabulary already handled by the schema. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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 83%, above the baseline threshold, and the schema already documents key, amount, chords, lengths and techniques in detail. The description adds nothing about parameters, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (reharmonizes) and resource (a progression), and adds distinguishing scope: jazz/soul/classical/film techniques, length preservation, and per-change explanations. It does not name which sibling it replaces (e.g. suggest_progressions or harmonize_melody), so the agent must infer the distinction from the technique vocabulary.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent seeing suggest_progressions, harmonize_melody, analyze_progression and analyze_harmony in the sibling set gets no signal on when reharmonize is the right call versus those.

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