mcp_opendaw_apply_contour

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It includes important behaviors: timing and duration remain unchanged, original pitch range center is preserved, and snapping to scale degree is optional. However, it does not explicitly state the destructive nature (e.g., that pitches are overwritten) or mention undo/restore implications beyond the preserve flags, leaving a slight transparency gap.

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 structured cleanly: purpose statement, algorithm explanation, contour definitions, and args list. Every sentence adds value—no redundant repetition of schema titles or types. It is front-loaded with the primary action and scales into necessary detail without bloat.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema (so return values need not be described), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the algorithmic behavior, all contour semantics, parameter nuances, and even provides a differentiation from a sibling. This equips the agent to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter docs. It does this thoroughly: each parameter is explained with units, ranges, defaults, and allowed values (e.g., range_semitones '1-48, default 12=octave', full contour list, scale list). This is essential and well-executed.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Apply a melodic contour shape to existing notes.' It further details the behavior (redistributes pitches while keeping timing/duration) and explicitly contrasts with transpose_notes ('uniform shift'), making the tool's unique purpose unmistakable and well-differentiated from siblings.

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 explicitly names the alternative transpose_notes and explains the difference: 'Unlike transpose_notes (uniform shift), this reshapes the melody direction.' This provides a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use signal, telling the agent to reach for this tool when reshaping contour rather than shifting uniformly.

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