mcp_opendaw_force_scale_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains that notes are moved to the nearest in-scale note, details direction and preserve_octave behavior, and mentions the return value. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is destructive or replaces the region, but the description implies modification. Overall, it provides sufficient transparency for safe invocation.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the core purpose in a single line, followed by a brief explanation, then parameter details, and finally the return value. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 lack of annotations and the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the essential behavior and return values. It explains the effect, parameter options, and expected output. The only minor gap is the missing documentation of the indexing parameters, but overall it is complete enough for an agent 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers root_note, scale, direction, and preserve_octave with clear explanations. However, it does not describe unit_index, track_index, or region_index, which are present in the schema. This leaves 3 out of 7 parameters undocumented, meaning the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema coverage.

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 purpose: 'Force all notes in a region into a specific scale — harmonic snap.' It explains the action (finds out-of-scale notes and moves them) and compares it to quantize_notes, distinguishing it from siblings like quantize_notes or transpose_notes.

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 recommends use cases: 'Useful after audio-to-MIDI transcription, random generation, or importing MIDI from unknown sources.' It also draws an analogy to quantize_notes, helping the agent understand when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving a small gap.

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