generate_voiced_progression

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

The description explains the destructive behavior ('REPLACES existing notes') consistent with the destructiveHint annotation. It also details voice-leading and style options, adding valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter details. It is efficient, though bullet notation is informal but effective.

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?

While most key parameters are covered, some (seed, velocity, beats_per_chord) are omitted. Given the tool's complexity and 10 parameters, the description could be more complete without being overly verbose.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to parameters by explaining the progression format, style options, center_pitch bias, and other parameters. This compensates for the lack of schema comments.

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 action ('Write voice-led jazz chord voicings') and the resource ('into a Session clip'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'voice-led' and 'jazz voicings', which differentiates from simpler chord tools like generate_chord_progression.

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 implies usage for jazz voicings but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_chord_progression. It notes that it replaces existing notes, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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