mcp_opendaw_create_glissando

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that glissando creates a continuous-sounding slide through intermediate pitches, works in chromatic/diatonic/pentatonic modes, and mentions the return value: 'Returns notes created, pitch list, scale type.' This is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 the purpose stated upfront, followed by a parameter-by-parameter breakdown. It is slightly lengthy, but every sentence adds necessary information. It could be slightly more concise by grouping related parameters, but it remains clear and efficient.

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 10 parameters, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter semantics, return values, and behavioral context (scale types, differentiation from similar tools). An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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, but the tool's description provides detailed explanations for all 10 parameters, including defaults and allowed values (e.g., scale_type options, rate values, velocity_curve types). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema, fully compensating for its 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 starts with a clear statement: 'Create a glissando — smooth scale run between two pitches.' It then distinguishes this tool from riser/bass_drop by explaining that glissando plays every intermediate note at a fixed rate, unlike pitch sweeps. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools with similar names, achieving a specific verb+resource pairing.

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 explicitly contrasts glissando with riser/bass_drop, indicating when to use this tool instead (for a true scale run feel rather than a pitch sweep). It also explains the three scale types (chromatic, diatonic, pentatonic) to guide usage. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools for similar tasks.

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