Write a raga/scale MELODY

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds that it only selects channel and writes, requiring pre-conditions. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: what it does, what the user must do, and prerequisites. No wasted 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the workflow: user generates notes, tool writes them. It mentions setup needs. It could elaborate on channel validity but is generally complete.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by stating that the notes parameter is user-generated (you generate swaras) and that raga and root are labels only. This clarifies parameter roles beyond the schema.

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 it writes a single-line melody into a channel via piano-roll bridge. It distinguishes from siblings like fl_write_raga_chords by specifying 'single-line, sequential notes' and from fl_write_piano_roll_notes by focusing on raga context. The verb 'write' and resource 'melody' are precise.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'SHOW the user the notes/swaras BEFORE calling' and 'Needs the Piano roll open + MCP_Apply armed once this session'. It also clarifies what the tool does not do (generate swaras). It lacks an explicit alternative, but the context is clear.

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