mcp_opendaw_add_suspension

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

No annotations are provided, but the description compensates with detailed behavior: it specifies that notes on strong beats are targeted, preparatory notes are placed a step above/below and snapped to scale tones, velocities are given with musical rationale, and cross_track behavior is explained. However, it does not explicitly state whether original notes are modified or preserved on the source track, which is a notable gap for a mutation 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?

The description starts with a concise purpose sentence, then builds context with the suspension definition, structure, and algorithm. The Args section is logically ordered. The cultural flourish about Bach chorales and film scores adds context but is not strictly necessary, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides thorough documentation of the algorithm, parameter effects, and musical intent. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites such as needing metrical information to find strong beats, but overall it is highly complete for an AI agent to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema provides zero descriptions, but the Arg list covers all 11 parameters with types, defaults, ranges (e.g., preparation_beats 0.25-2.0), scale list, and musical context (e.g., 'down' = classic 4-3, 9-8 suspension). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 opening line 'Add suspension-resolutions to existing notes' clearly states the action and resource. The subsequent explanation of the suspension structure (Preparation → Suspension → Resolution) and the algorithm makes it easy to distinguish from sibling ornament tools like add_passing_tones or create_appoggiatura.

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 that the tool operates on existing notes, targets strong beats, and creates suspensions, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it never explicitly mentions alternatives or states 'use this instead of X,' so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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