mcp_opendaw_set_note_properties

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 the skip behavior (-1) but does not disclose side effects, undo capability, or permissions. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 front-loaded with the key usage tip and prerequisite, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers core usage, parameter semantics, and output. It does not address error conditions or validation, but output schema likely fills gaps. Overall complete for typical use.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fully compensates by listing each parameter with its meaning, valid range (e.g., pitch 0-127), and behavior (-1 skip). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and clearly identifies the resource ('properties of a single note within a region'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_opendaw_set_note_cents by focusing on multiple properties at once.

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 explicit usage guidance: passing -1 to skip parameters and using list_notes first to find the note_index. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the prerequisite tip is valuable.

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