mcp_opendaw_add_tempo_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a ValueEventBox is created, explains the normalized value mapping and automatic conversion, and states the return value (created event and tempo map). This is informative, though it doesn't mention idempotency or effects on existing tempo changes.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, internal details, and a parameter list. It is reasonably concise, though it could trim some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'BPM' multiple times). Overall, every sentence adds value.

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 moderate-complexity tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, internal behavior, and return value. The output schema exists, so the return format is already structured. The description is complete for selection and invocation.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: position_beats (position in beats), bpm (target BPM, 60-240), and interpolation ('linear' vs 'hold'). This exceeds the raw schema and provides clear meaning and valid values.

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 adds a tempo change at a specific position, using a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('tempo change'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_bpm and create_tempo_ramp by focusing on mid-track automation and explicitly mentions creating a ValueEventBox on the tempo track.

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 implies usage for mid-track BPM automation with examples (120→90→140 BPM) and explains interpolation options. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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