mcp_opendaw_add_suspension

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

The description details the algorithmic behavior: it creates a preparatory note, holds it into a strong beat, and resolves to the target note. It explains the structure (preparation -> suspension -> resolution) and how parameters affect the outcome. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it does so well, though it could mention whether the original notes are modified or new notes are added.

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 notably verbose, including a multi-paragraph music theory lesson about suspensions (preparation, suspension, resolution). While informative, this could be shortened for an AI agent that primarily needs functional details. The first sentence is a clear purpose statement, but the length reduces conciseness.

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 of the musical effect and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the algorithm, parameters, and musical context. It does not mention error conditions or return values, but the output schema likely covers that. It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides clear semantics for each of the 11 parameters in the docstring (e.g., 'unit_index: Audio unit index', 'suspension_offset: Semitone offset of suspension from target'). It explains defaults and typical values. However, some parameter descriptions could be more precise (e.g., root defaults to 'C' but the description only says 'Root note for scale'). Overall, it compensates well for the lack of 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 verb 'Add suspension-resolutions to existing notes' and provides a detailed explanation of what a suspension is in music theory. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being specific about the suspension technique, making its purpose 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 explains when to use the tool: 'This tool finds notes on strong beats (downbeats) and creates a suspension before them.' It implies the context of adding expressive non-chord tones. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar effects (e.g., anticipation, neighbor tones), which would improve clarity.

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