mcp_opendaw_create_reggae_percussion

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 drum notes are created using specific GM percussion pitches (36, 38, 42, 46), details swing range (0.0-0.6), and describes each style's rhythmic feel. However, it does not address behavior with invalid inputs, overwriting, or edge cases.

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 lead sentence and bullet-style style definitions. However, it is somewhat lengthy (multiple paragraphs) and includes very detailed BPM ranges for each style that could be streamlined.

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 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: what it creates (drum notes with specific pitches), style choices, and swing. It does not detail output schema (though one exists) or error handling, but it is largely complete for a creative drum pattern generator.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'style' with 6 detailed subdescriptions, 'swing' with range and genre guidance, and mentions 'track_index' and GM pitches. However, parameters like 'bars', 'velocity', 'tempo_bpm', 'start_beat', and 'unit_index' are not individually explained beyond defaults.

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 it creates reggae percussion patterns across 6 styles, using a specific verb ('create') and resource ('reggae percussion'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_breakbeat' and 'create_drum_pattern' by narrowing scope to Jamaican reggae.

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 detailed style characterizations that implicitly guide when to use each style (e.g., one_drop for roots reggae, ska for fast upbeat), but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use comparisons with alternative tools. No direct mentions of alternatives or exclusions.

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