generate_bassline

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

The description discloses that the tool replaces existing notes, and explains style behaviors (roots, root_fifth, walking, eighth_pump) and octave ranges. Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: it states the action and side effect first, then details parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main behaviors but omits details on 'beats_per_chord' and does not describe the output format (though output schema exists). The tool has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, so more context would be beneficial.

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 description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the 'progression' parameter (referencing generate_chord_progression syntax), style options, and octave. However, it does not explain 'velocity', 'clip_index', 'track_index', or 'beats_per_chord', leaving gaps.

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's function: 'Write a bassline following a chord progression.' It explicitly mentions that it replaces existing notes, distinguishing it from other note-generation tools. Among siblings, it is distinct from generate_chord_progression and generate_drum_pattern.

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 implies usage for generating basslines but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not include when-not-to-use scenarios or comparisons with sibling tools.

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