create_chord_progression

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

No annotations provided, but the description details behavior: chord voicing, base_octave mapping, chord_duration_qn, auto-creation with item_index=-1, and return values (item index, count, failures). This fully informs the agent of the tool's effects.

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 well-structured with paragraphs and inline examples, but slightly verbose in listing all chord qualities. Still, it is efficient and front-loads key information.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description covers most aspects. However, it does not elaborate on parameters like track_index, start_qn, velocity, channel, or the exact return format for failed parses, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: explains chords format, base_octave, chord_duration_qn, item_index auto-creation, and supported qualities. It effectively compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 inserts a chord progression as voiced MIDI notes. It specifies the input format (comma, pipe, dash, newline), supported chord qualities, and defaults, distinguishing it from sibling tools like midi_insert_notes_batch.

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 the chord input format and supported qualities, implying when to use (for chord progressions). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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