mcp_opendaw_create_boom_bap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal pattern logic (kick on 1 & 3, snare on 2 & 4), velocity offsets for ghost hats and snares, and the return value ('notes created, boom-bap type, stroke breakdown'). It does not mention whether the tool overwrites existing notes on the target track, but overall it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 long but well-structured, with clear sections for boom-bap explanation, type definitions, parameter details, returns, and examples. The historical references add flavor but are not strictly necessary. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains readable despite the length.

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 complex 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, this description is remarkably thorough. It covers the musical styles, primary parameter semantics, output details, and usage examples. The only gaps are the three unmentioned positional parameters and the lack of clarity on interaction with existing notes, but the output schema helps fill in return structure.

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%, and the description compensates for most parameters: boom_bap_type is thoroughly explained with five style variants, bars has a range, pitches include MIDI note examples, and velocity includes base and offset behavior. However, start_beat, unit_index, and track_index are not described at all, leaving a meaningful gap for those parameters.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Create a boom-bap hip-hop drum pattern.' It defines boom-bap and describes multiple subtypes, distinguishing it from generic drum-pattern tools among siblings. This gives a precise verb+resource+scope that leaves no ambiguity.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when a boom-bap hip-hop drum pattern is needed. It provides detailed guidance for choosing among boom_bap_type styles, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases relative to sibling tools. This is clear context without exclusions.

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