mcp_opendaw_invert_chord_notes

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the internal process (find notes at beat, group as chord, move notes) and return fields (notes_inverted, original pitches, etc.). Does not mention error conditions but is fairly transparent for a technical tool.

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?

Description is structured with a summary line, explanatory paragraph, and parameter list. Slightly long but each part adds value. No 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 output schema, the description covers return values and inputs. Does not specify prerequisites (e.g., chord must exist at position) or error handling, but overall sufficient for a mutation tool.

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%, but the description compensates by listing all parameters with explanations (e.g., inversion=1 first, 2 second, 3 third for 7th chords; direction up=standard, down=drop). Adds value beyond schema defaults and titles.

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 inverts chord notes by moving bottom N up or top N down an octave. It explains inversions (1st, 2nd) and distinguishes from siblings like invert_notes and spread_voicing by focusing on chord voicing at a specific beat position.

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 explains inversion theory and parameter roles but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like spread_voicing or invert_notes. It implies usage for changing chord voicing without altering the chord itself.

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