compose_chord_progression

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the non-mutating safety profile. The description adds the specific 'without changing FL' context and the voice-led behavior, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as how generated chords are returned or how parameters interact. 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?

A single sentence with high signal-to-noise: the verb, target resource, key musical behavior, and non-mutating constraint are all front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 the 9-parameter complexity, annotation coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not explain when to select this tool over compose siblings, nor does it clarify the meaning of the less obvious parameters. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but broader usage context is missing.

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 44%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Several parameters (octave, velocity, tempo_bpm, beats_per_chord, custom_intervals) lack schema descriptions, and the tool description does not compensate. While some names are self-explanatory, custom_intervals in particular remains underspecified.

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 ('Generate') with a clear resource ('voice-led triads/sevenths') and a distinguishing constraint ('without changing FL'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling composition tools like compose_melody, compose_bassline, and compose_drums, as well as FL-mutating tools.

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 'without changing FL' gives useful context that this tool is non-mutating, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like compose_melody, compose_bassline, or piano_roll_write_notes. Usage context is implied but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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