generate_additive

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

The description discloses the destructive behavior (replacing notes), aligning with the destructiveHint annotation. It also details the algorithm and parameter effects, though some behavioral traits like output summary content are omitted.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and warning. It is moderately concise, though the algorithmic explanation could be slightly tighter.

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, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the main algorithm and parameter usage. It lacks details on the return value and assumes MIDI clips, 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining key parameters (pitches, note_length, steps, source_clip_index) and their roles. However, track_index, clip_index, and velocity are not elaborated.

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 a 'Philip-Glass additive process' into a Session clip, explicitly mentioning it replaces existing notes. This distinguishes it from sibling generative tools like generate_melody or generate_bassline.

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 explains how the tool works with parameters but does not explicitly indicate when to use it versus other generative tools. No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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