generate_phase

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

The description explicitly states that the tool replaces clip notes if the clip already exists, aligning with the destructiveHint: true annotation. It also details the algorithmic behavior of shifting and repeating motifs, providing full transparency about how the output is generated.

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 two paragraphs and concisely covers the essential algorithm and parameters. It could be slightly more structured but avoids unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (8 parameters, 2 required, output schema exists), the description covers the algorithmic logic and key parameter behaviors. It lacks detail for required parameters but overall provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 significant meaning by explaining the role of pitches, shift, repeats, note_length, and source_clip_index. However, required parameters track_index and clip_index are not described, though their purpose may be inferred from context.

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 Steve Reich phasing pattern into a Session clip, replacing existing notes. It explains the algorithm of building a motif from pitches and stacking shifted copies, which distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like generate_melody or generate_bassline.

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 explains when to use the tool for creating phasing patterns and mentions an alternative input via source_clip_index. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other generation tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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