mcp_opendaw_set_note_cents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that the tool applies specific cent offsets, describes modes, and mentions the cent range (-100 to +100). It also notes that it returns 'notes modified, per-mode details, and average cents applied'. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or destructive actions.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured with bullet points for modes and dashes for examples. It front-loads the core purpose and differentiates from siblings. However, some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating allowed values in the examples could be trimmed). Still, it earns its length.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema existing (so return values need not be described in detail), the description is quite complete. It covers the main behavior, all modes, and parameter explanations. The examples provide rich context for usage. Minor gaps: no description of error conditions or edge cases.

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 compensate. It explains 8 out of 11 parameters in detail (mode, cents, target_pitch, beat_positions, note_indices, direction, scale, root_note), providing examples and context. The remaining three (unit_index, track_index, region_index) are briefly mentioned with defaults. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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: setting deterministic cent offsets on notes for microtonal pitch control. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'humanize_pitch' by explicitly contrasting random vs deterministic behavior. The verb+resource is specific: 'Set detune (cents) on 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool, explicitly contrasting with humanize_pitch (random cents). It lists multiple modes and example use cases, helping the agent understand applicability. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternative tools beyond humanize_pitch.

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