mcp_opendaw_add_passing_tones

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

Annotations are absent, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the placement on weak beats, the direction options, the cross_track behavior (placing on another track to preserve original melody), and the default velocity being quieter. It does not explicitly state whether notes are inserted or modified in place or if it's reversible, but the cross_track option implies a non-destructive path. The level of detail significantly exceeds minimal transparency.

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 longer than average but well-structured: a lead sentence, an explanatory paragraph, a bulleted condition list, and a detailed Args section. Every part contributes to understanding. The musical examples (Bach, jazz, pop) add context but could be trimmed without losing core meaning. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and maintains focus throughout.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and a schema lacking descriptions, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers the musical goal, the exact conditions for operation, every parameter with meaning and defaults, and a notable behavioral option (cross_track). The presence of an output schema is not critical here since this is a mutation tool; the description fully equips an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides comprehensive semantics for all 10 parameters. It explains units, ranges, defaults, and even musical rationale (e.g., velocity default 0.6 'slightly quieter than melodic notes, as is traditional'). This goes far beyond the minimal schema types and titles, giving the agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 opens with a clear, specific statement: 'Add passing tones between existing notes for smoother melodic lines.' It names the exact resource (passing tones between existing notes) and verb (add), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_anticipation or add_neighbor_tones by focusing on interval-filling with scale steps. The musical context and conditions further clarify its unique role.

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 concrete conditions for when the tool is applicable (interval > 2 semitones, enough time gap, not exceeding max_interval) and gives musical examples (Bach, jazz, pop). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the conditions strongly imply the appropriate context. While not as explicit as naming alternative tools, it offers clear usage guidance beyond a vague 'use this for counterpoint.'

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