audio_transcribe_melody

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'does not mutate FL' mostly repeats structured data. It adds the monophonic-input constraint, but does not disclose timing, failure modes, or what happens with polyphonic input.

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 a single front-loaded sentence: it states the core purpose first and then the safety constraint. No filler words; it is as concise as possible while being informative.

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?

Given 7 parameters and 14% schema description coverage, the tool needed a fuller context picture. The output schema helps, but the description gives no parameter guidance, no expected return style, and no differentiation from audio_analyze_file or compose_melody, leaving important gaps for an agent.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate for the 7 parameters. It mentions no parameter by name or provides any guidance on fmin_hz, fmax_hz, tempo_bpm, max_seconds, quantize_grid_beats, or minimum_note_seconds.

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 identifies the action ('Extract a reviewable note sequence') and resource ('monophonic audio'), and it adds a clear safety boundary ('does not mutate FL'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like audio_analyze_file or compose_melody, so it is not a full 5.

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 phrase 'from monophonic audio' implies when the tool should be used, and 'does not mutate FL' implies it is an analysis tool rather than a DAW-mutating operation. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling is a better alternative.

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