mcp_opendaw_create_arpeggio

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the full burden. It comprehensively describes the chord format, pattern options, rate semantics, defaults, and return value ('Returns the total notes created and pitches used'). All behavioral aspects are disclosed without contradiction.

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 thorough but structured: a one-line headline followed by a clean parameter list. It is efficient but could potentially be more concise by grouping related parameters (e.g., unit_index and track_index). Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 tool's 9 parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all inputs, defaults, return value, and provides examples. It places the arpeggio in context (track, unit, start beat) and explains the pattern behavior. No gaps are evident 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully document each parameter. It does so: chord format with examples, pattern list with explanations, rate values, octave, steps, velocity, start_beat, unit_index, and track_index all explicitly described. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair ('Create an arpeggio from a chord name') and immediately provides a comparative efficiency hook ('one call instead of 8-32 create_note calls'), clearly distinguishing this tool from its sibling 'mcp_opendaw_create_note'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose for arpeggio creation and contrasts it with create_note, giving strong contextual usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or mention alternative arpeggio methods, though for a specialized tool this is less critical.

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