mcp_opendaw_apply_swing

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: no velocity/duration changes, deterministic, no randomness, reversible, and returns per-track note counts shifted. This gives the agent a solid safety and side-effect profile.

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 with a purpose statement, parameter details, return value, and a usage example. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and a rich schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, return value, and an example. This leaves no significant gaps for an agent to select and 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains all four parameters in detail: unit_index, track_index, swing_amount (including range and musical examples like 0.55-0.66 for hip-hop/lofi), and grid (with default and interpretation). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Apply swing feel to existing notes without changing velocity or duration.' It also explicitly contrasts with humanize_notes, making the purpose and distinction from siblings clear.

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 states when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Unlike humanize_notes (which couples swing with random velocity/timing changes), this tool applies pure swing.' This tells the agent when to choose this over a known sibling.

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