Write raga/scale CHORDS

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context about bridge integration and user interaction requirement, and the mode parameter clarifies replace/append behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, method, and usage instruction. No redundant words.

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?

The description fully covers what chords are, how to construct them via parameters, and the required user interaction. With output schema present, return values are implicitly covered. Complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 high (80%). The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the concept of chords as stacked notes with same time_bars and emphasizing that the tool selects the channel. This compensates well for the remaining schema gaps.

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 tool writes chords/progressions into the selected channel via the bridge, with explicit instruction to stack notes with same time_bars. It distinguishes from siblings like fl_write_raga_melody by emphasizing simultaneous notes.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on preparing input (stack chord tones with same time_bars) and instructs to show the user chords before calling. It implies use for chords, distinguishing from melody tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives beyond sibling context.

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