compose_bassline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'without changing FL' and 'bounded,' which are mild behavioral clarifications, but it does not disclose additional traits such as output placement, determinism details, or any constraints beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. It communicates the action, the input source, the output type, and the side-effect guarantee efficiently.

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?

With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, given the tool has nine parameters and only one is clarified, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding how to configure optional parameters.

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 33%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for one key parameter by clarifying that the progression is in Roman-numeral form, but the remaining parameters (root, style, seed, octave, tempo, collection, beats_per_chord, custom_intervals) receive no additional semantic guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a bounded bass part from Roman harmony.' It clearly identifies the output as a bassline, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compose_melody and compose_drums. The phrase 'without changing FL' also clarifies the read-only nature of the operation.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a bass part needs to be generated from a Roman-numeral harmonic progression. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the intended use case is evident.

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