mcp_opendaw_create_break

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It describes that it generates patterns, repeats bars, applies variation, and returns notes. However, it does not mention side effects like whether it overwrites existing notes, prerequisites (e.g., the track must have an audio unit with note tracks), or potential destructive actions. Given no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 starts with a concise value proposition, then a structural overview, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value; the parameter descriptions are detailed but necessary due to low schema coverage. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Minor redundancy is acceptable given the need for clarity.

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?

The description explains the tool's core function, all parameters, and the return value. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., the existence of a note track) and does not clarify the behavior of default values like 'unit_index: -1'. However, given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete for an agent to use 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including the enum-like breakdown of 'break_type' with musical context for each preset, and clear options for 'variation'. Each parameter's role is clearly defined, fully compensating for the schema's lack of 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a classic drum break.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_drum_pattern' and 'create_breakbeat' by emphasizing it generates patterns from presets with specific iconic break types (amen, think, etc.), making its unique value obvious.

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 gives clear context: it's for generating classic drum breaks from presets with optional variation and swing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'create_drum_pattern' for arbitrary patterns), nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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