generate_genre_progression

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the generative process (genre grammar transposed into key+scale, then voiced), mentions fuzzy matching for genre, and clarifies that bars correspond to number of chords (grammar loops). The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' is consistent with the explicit 'REPLACES existing notes'. The description also indicates it returns chord symbols. This provides good transparency.

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 a single paragraph that front-loads the main action and includes important details like the list of genres and the replacement behavior. It is reasonably concise, though the list of genres could be abbreviated. The structure is clear and every sentence adds value except possibly the lengthy genre list, but it's useful for fuzzy matching.

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 complexity (12 parameters, destructive behavior, output schema exists but not described), the description covers the core functionality and the destructive warning, but it leaves many parameters unexplained. The return value is mentioned ('chord symbols') but not detailed. For a tool that replaces existing notes, more context about what gets overwritten and how would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only explains 'genre' (lists examples, mentions fuzzy matching) and 'bars' (number of chords). Other parameters like 'key', 'scale', 'style', 'voices', 'seed', 'velocity', 'center_pitch', 'beats_per_chord', and required 'track_index'/'clip_index' are not mentioned. Even though some are common, the description fails to add meaning for most, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 it builds a genre-idiomatic chord progression and writes it as voiced chords, specifying that it replaces existing notes. It lists many genres and distinguishes itself from 'generate_voiced_progression' by noting that tool handles style options. The verb 'Build' and 'write' along with the resource 'chord progression' make the purpose very specific.

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 mentions that it replaces existing notes and provides a list of genres, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others like 'generate_chord_progression' or 'generate_voiced_progression'. It refers to 'generate_voiced_progression' for style options but does not clarify when one would choose this tool over that one. Some context is implied but no explicit when-not or alternative usage guidance.

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