mcp_opendaw_apply_velocity_lfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral context: it explains the oscillating algorithm, parameter formulas (e.g., 'modulates ±depth*center'), and the return payload (notes_processed, min/max/avg stats). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation mutates note velocities in place or warn about destructiveness/reversibility, which would have made it fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a compact Args block with one line per parameter, followed by a Returns section. Every sentence adds information—the differentiation sentence, parameter examples, and return field list all serve purpose without redundancy. The structure is scannable and efficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

The description covers the tool's operation, all parameters, output format, and sibling differentiation, which is strong given the lack of annotations and schema descriptions. Minor gaps remain: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the target track must be a note track with notes) or error/empty-region behavior, but the core knowledge needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all 8 parameters with rich detail: rate includes beat-cycle examples (0.25=every 4 beats, 1.0=per beat), shape enumerates the waveform options and their meanings, phase explains starting positions, and center gives the exact modulation formula. This exceeds what a typical schema description would provide.

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 periodic velocity modulation — velocity LFO along note positions,' which precisely states what the tool does. It further clarifies by contrasting with 'apply_velocity_curve (monotonic ramps)' and emphasizing 'REPEATING velocity patterns synced to beat positions,' distinguishing it from sibling velocity tools.

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 closest alternative (apply_velocity_curve) and states when to choose this tool over it: for 'pumping, breathing, or wave-like dynamic motion' and repeating patterns rather than monotonic ramps. It also provides concrete scenario descriptors ('pumping, breathing, wave-like') that signal appropriate use cases.

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