mcp_opendaw_create_afrobeat_arrangement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does reveal the behavioral output: notes created per track, total, the four track roles, and default tempo/bars/root. However, it does not state whether existing notes on the target tracks are overwritten or appended, nor does it mention required preconditions like the engine being running or tracks needing to exist. This leaves some important side-effect ambiguity for a create/mutation tool.

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 a clear overview and uses a structured bullet list for tracks. The example block is useful. That said, it is somewhat verbose with repeated stylistic flourishes (e.g., 'polyrhythmic heartbeat,' 'Fela's preference') and could be tightened without losing the essential genre context.

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 high-complexity tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, the description is above average but not complete. It covers most parameters and includes an output summary, but it omits velocity and start_beat semantics, and does not clarify whether the tool adds to or replaces existing notes on the target tracks. More explicit preconditions would make it fully self-sufficient.

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. It documents 9 of 11 parameters with helpful musical meaning: bpm range (100-130, default 120), bars (8-32), root (F as Fela's key), octave (C2=36), unit_index, and track indices. It also provides a usage example. However, it omits 'velocity' and 'start_beat', which are left entirely to the schema's bare defaults.

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 first sentence is explicit: 'Create a full afrobeat arrangement — polyrhythmic drums + bass + horns + guitar across 4 tracks.' This identifies the verb ('create'), the resource ('afrobeat arrangement'), and its core components. It also distinguishes itself from sibling genre-arrangement tools by emphasizing the non-electronic, 4-track organic texture.

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 provides strong context for when this tool is appropriate: Fela Kuti-style afrobeat, 120 BPM, 12/8 feel, and the contrast with electronic arrangements ('horns and guitar add organic texture that electronic arrangements don't have'). It lacks explicit exclusions or direct alternatives, but the genre context is clear enough for selection among many arrangement siblings.

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