mcp_opendaw_create_chorale

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It details voice-leading rules, voice ranges, and that it returns notes created and voice-leading info. It does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., whether notes are appended or overwritten), but the behavior is largely transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with paragraphs for voice-leading rules and parameter details. While somewhat lengthy, each sentence adds value. Parameter descriptions are clear but could be more concise.

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 complexity (4 voices, voice-leading, 14 parameters), the description is thorough. It covers voice-leading rules, range constraints, parameter semantics, and output description. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description still adds necessary context.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by providing clear, detailed explanations for all 14 parameters, including defaults, formats, and supported values (e.g., chord_pattern lists all chord types). This adds significant 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 clearly states 'Create a 4-voice SATB chorale with voice-leading rules', specifying both the verb (create) and resource (chorale). The additional context of 'Classic Bach chorale style' distinguishes it from other creation tools like create_chord_pads or create_melody, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 context for when to use the tool, mentioning its suitability for 'vocal harmonies, string arrangements, synth pad layering'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like create_harmony or create_bassline, which would strengthen guidance.

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