apply_scale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Apply scale to notes' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be needed, what the output looks like, or any side effects. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves when invoked.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity. Every word earns its place by attempting to convey the tool's function, even if inadequately.

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 complexity implied by parameters and sibling tools (e.g., music manipulation in a pattern-based system), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to cover behavioral aspects, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description fails to provide enough context for an agent to understand what this tool does, how it differs from similar tools, or what to expect after 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('scale' and 'root'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what valid scale names are, what format the root note should be in, or how these parameters interact. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Apply scale to notes' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'apply_scale'. It doesn't specify what 'apply' means operationally (e.g., does it transpose notes, generate notes based on scale, or filter notes?), nor does it clarify what 'notes' refers to (existing notes in a pattern, or generating new notes?). While it mentions the resource ('notes'), the verb 'apply' is too vague to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'transpose' or 'generate_scale'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools for music generation and manipulation (e.g., 'transpose', 'generate_scale', 'generate_melody'), the agent has no information to decide when 'apply_scale' is appropriate versus these other options.

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