generate_chord_progression

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it replaces existing notes, which is consistent. It also describes rhythm and strum behaviors. However, it does not disclose other potential effects, such as whether automation or other clip data is affected. For a destructive operation, more context would be beneficial.

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 relatively short and well-structured. It leads with the core action, then provides details on the progression format and optional parameters. Examples are included. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler. Slightly longer than necessary, but overall efficient.

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 that the tool has 8 parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the main functionality and the most critical parameters (progression, rhythm, strum). However, it fails to explain parameters like center_pitch, beats_per_chord, and velocity, which are important for controlling the output. The completeness is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the format for 'progression', options for 'rhythm', and the meaning of 'strum'. However, it does not describe 'velocity', 'center_pitch', 'beats_per_chord', or the index parameters. With 8 parameters and only 3 partially covered, the description leaves significant 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 writes a chord progression into a Session clip and replaces existing notes. The verb 'write' and resource 'chord progression into a Session clip' are specific. The mention of 'REPLACES existing notes' distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip, which presumably add non-destructively.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like add_notes_to_clip or edit_notes. Users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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