mcp_opendaw_create_bordun

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

The description explains key behaviors: sustained vs. retriggered (retrigger_bars), softer default velocity, and the return of created notes. Without annotations, it makes reasonable effort to disclose what the tool does, though it doesn't state whether existing notes on the target track are cleared or appended.

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?

Structured with a one-line summary, a contextual definition paragraph, and per-parameter bullet lines, all of which add semantic value without redundancy.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, all parameters, and return value ('Returns notes created, pitches, total duration'), providing enough context given the tool's complexity and the lack of annotations or schema descriptions.

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?

All 10 parameters receive detailed explanations with examples (intervals '0,7' = open fifth), defaults, and ranges (octave 1-6, bars 1-16), fully compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 defines the tool precisely: 'Create a bordun — continuously sustained drone chord as a textural layer.' It further contrasts with pedal_point, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling tool.

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?

Explicitly differentiates from pedal_point: 'Unlike pedal_point (which is a single repeated/anchored note), the bordun is a *sustained textural layer*.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the primary alternative.

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