generate_melody

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds significant behavioral detail, explaining voice-leading, bias to chord tones, optional chromatic notes, and parameter effects, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 structured with an initial summary, then a list of parameters with specific values and ranges. It is relatively concise given the number of parameters, though slightly dense. Front-loads key information (replaces notes).

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 tool's complexity and 13 parameters, the description covers most aspects of behavior and parameter meanings. It lacks information about return values (output schema exists but is not provided) and prerequisites, but otherwise is sufficiently detailed.

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 compensates by explaining most parameters: progression (dash-/comma-separated), key (examples), scale (list of options), density, phrase_arc, chromatic (range), low/high (MIDI), swing (range). It omits seed and beats_per_chord, but coverage is strong overall.

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 'write a voice-led melody over a chord progression' and emphasizes it 'REPLACES existing notes.' This distinguishes it from sibling generative tools like generate_bassline or 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It simply describes functionality without usage context.

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