mcp_opendaw_create_arpeggio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the return value, default velocity, and pattern edge cases (e.g., updown includes top and bottom twice), but it does not state whether notes are appended to or replace existing notes, whether a valid note track must already exist, or how note durations are derived from rate.

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 opens with a one-line purpose and then uses a clean parameter-by-parameter format that makes the 9 parameters easy to scan. Every sentence provides concrete value (values, defaults, or examples) and no content is wasted.

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 the tool complexity, the description is largely complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, patterns, and return value. It lacks only a few contextual details such as whether the arpeggio is additive to existing notes and whether the target track must be pre-created, which 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%, but the description documents all 9 parameters in plain language, including explicit chord root/type lists, pattern options, rate values, defaults, and units. This fully compensates for the bare schema and adds meaning well beyond the property titles.

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 opening sentence states a specific action ('Create an arpeggio from a chord name') and distinguishes it from the primary alternative by noting it replaces 8-32 create_note calls. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiates it from sibling note-creation 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 clearly tells the agent to use this instead of multiple create_note calls, which is an explicit usage context. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer related siblings like create_arpeggiated_progression or create_ostinato, so it falls slightly short of full exclusion guidance.

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