generate_chord_progression

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

The description adds significant context beyond the destructiveHint annotation, detailing exact destructive behavior: 'creates a clip when the slot is empty; otherwise resizes its loop and replaces every existing note'. This fully discloses the tool's impact.

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, with a clear first sentence defining purpose and a well-structured second paragraph covering behavior, prerequisites, format, and alternatives. No superfluous content.

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 presence of an output schema (making return value documentation unnecessary), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, destructive behavior, prerequisites, input format, and alternatives. It's fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by explaining chord symbol format and listing supported qualities, which is domain-specific guidance not present in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Generate voiced chords and write them into one Session-view MIDI clip', specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from siblings like add_notes_to_clip and edit_notes by giving explicit alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (generating chord progressions) and when not to, referencing specific alternatives ('Use add_notes_to_clip for exact notes or edit_notes to preserve existing ones'). It also notes a prerequisite: 'The track must accept MIDI'.

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