generate_walking_bass

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

The description adds algorithmic detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation: root on beat 1, chromatic approach on last beat, ghost notes, and impact of key/scale. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 reasonably concise with two sentences separated by purpose and parameter details. It front-loads the main action and lists key parameters. Minor improvements could structure parameter explanations more systematically, 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical operational details: required parameters track_index and clip_index are not explained, and optional parameters like beats_per_chord and seed lack any context. For a tool with 10 parameters, this leaves significant ambiguity for an AI agent.

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 explains some parameters (progression, key, scale, octave, ghost) with specific formatting and ranges. However, other parameters (seed, velocity, beats_per_chord, track_index, clip_index) remain unexplained, leaving gaps for half the inputs.

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 'Write[s] a quarter-note walking bass line under a progression' and specifies it replaces notes. The term 'walking bass' distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_bassline which likely produce different styles. The verb-resource pair is specific and unambiguous.

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 generating a walking bass line over a chord progression, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_bassline. It mentions it replaces notes, hinting it works on existing clips, but lacks clear when-to or when-not-to guidance.

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