mcp_opendaw_augment_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses factor effects, mode behavior on note positions (including potential overlaps/gaps), the possibility of skipped notes, and the return value. It omits explicit claims about reversibility or in-place modification, but covers core side effects adequately.

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 clear summary, factor bullets, a musical example, parameter definitions, and return information. It is longer than minimal but justified by complexity; the Beethoven/Bach example, while illustrative, is not essential for an AI agent, making it slightly less concise than a 5.

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?

It covers core functionality, all parameters, return behavior, and provides real-world context for use. It lacks explicit edge-case handling (e.g., invalid factor range or no notes present) but the mention of skipped notes covers some. Given the output schema captures exact return structure, this is adequately complete.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains every parameter: factor range and effect, unit_index as AU index, track_index as note track, region_index defaulting to -1 for all regions, and mode with two detailed behaviors. This far exceeds the schema's bare type information.

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 and resource ('Augment or diminish note durations') and immediately identifies it as the 'fourth classical transformation', clearly distinguishing it from transpose, reverse, and invert. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling 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?

It provides clear guidance on when to use augmentation vs diminution through factor ranges, and explains the two modes ('scale' and 'stretch') with practical implications for note positions. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other transformations or state when not to use this tool, though it implies complementarity with transpose/reverse/invert.

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