mcp_opendaw_create_appoggiatura

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains the sequential nature (approach note first, then resolution), the ratio affecting tension, and the effect of approach direction. It also mentions return value. Lacks details on permissions or side effects, but the behavior is well-covered.

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 relatively long but well-structured: a concise one-line summary, followed by contextual paragraphs, then individual parameter descriptions. Front-loaded with key information. Could be slightly more concise, but appropriate for a complex ornament.

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?

Covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and output. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond mentioning 'notes created, pitches used'. For a music notation tool with moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 detailed explanations for all eight parameters: default values, ranges, musical meaning (e.g., 'approach_pitch: The grace note played first (default 62 = D4). Can be above or below main.'). This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 creates an appoggiatura, defines it as a leaning grace note resolving to main note, and explicitly differentiates it from mordent (quick flick) and other baroque ornaments like trill and turn. It uses specific verbs and musical context, making the 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 provides guidance on when to use (expressive ornament) and contrasts with mordent ('unlike a mordent'). It gives examples of above/below approach and adjustable ratio, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools beyond ornaments. Still clear and helpful.

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