mcp_opendaw_create_harmony

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 explains that it reads notes from an existing region, creates copies, and supports diatonic/chromatic intervals. It mentions default velocity and output to new/existing track. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether original notes are modified, destruction, or idempotency). With zero annotations, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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: a brief summary, followed by a clear list of parameters with explanations. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, every sentence contributes value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., 'interval: Harmony interval type:' is slightly repetitive), but overall it is 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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all parameters adequately and mentions return values ('Returns source notes read and harmony notes created'). It explains the process and the difference between diatonic and chromatic intervals. The output schema likely details the return structure, so the description is sufficient for an AI to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description extensively explains each parameter. For interval, it lists all valid values and their meanings (e.g., 'thirds — diatonic third above/below'). It explains velocity default (0.65, slightly quieter) and the purpose of new_unit_index (-1 creates new track). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema names and compensates fully for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Generate harmony parts from existing notes'. It lists specific intervals (thirds, fifths, sixths, octaves) and differentiates from similar tools like create_harmony_line by focusing on fixed-interval harmony from existing notes. The verb 'create' and resource 'harmony parts' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when harmonizing existing notes: 'Reads notes from an existing region and creates harmonized copies at a fixed interval.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context is clear. Among siblings like create_harmony_line, this tool is for fixed-interval harmony, which is clearly indicated.

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