mcp_opendaw_create_ghost_notes

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

The description discloses that it inserts new low-velocity notes at off-beat positions where no notes exist, and works on the first note track if track_index=-1. It mentions returns number of ghost notes added and positions. It could clarify that it does not modify existing notes, but overall good transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, detailed explanation, parameter list, return value, and example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, mechanism, parameter details, return value, and usage context. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds excellent parameter explanations: density (probability at each 16th position), velocity (0-1 with typical ranges), seed (reproducibility), plus index defaults. Example usage further clarifies. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 adds ghost notes to existing drum/MIDI patterns, explains what ghost notes are, and specifies it works on the first note track. It distinguishes from siblings like create_note or create_drum_pattern by focusing on adding subtle, low-velocity notes to existing patterns.

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 usage context by mentioning genres where ghost notes are essential (funk, R&B, neo-soul, hip-hop) and explains they fill spaces between main hits. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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