suggest_progressions

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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does disclose the return payload: numerals, chord symbols in the key, and an explanation of why each progression works. That is genuinely useful output-shape context for a tool with no output schema, though it says nothing about limits, ordering, or what seed/count actually control.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with what the tool produces, with no filler. Slightly dense list-of-three phrasing, but nothing redundant or padded.

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 7-parameter, no-output-schema generation tool, the description gives a reasonable picture of the returned progressions but omits any account of seed (reproducibility), count, length, or sevenths, and doesn't state that the result is a suggestion rather than a project mutation. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 57%, and the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Its references to “the genre's own idioms” and progressions that “fit the mood” merely restate the existing schema descriptions for genre and mood, while seed, count, length, and sevenths get no semantic explanation anywhere in the 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?

States a specific verb+resource: generating chord progressions for a key, in three named flavors (genre idioms, famous named progressions, generated from functional harmony). This is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like analyze_progression, reharmonize, or add_chord_progression (the latter actually writes into the project).

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 only implied: it takes a key and outputs suggestions, so the agent infers it is for ideation rather than analysis or insertion. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as analyze_progression or add_chord_progression.

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