mcp_opendaw_create_break

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses generative behavior ('Generates...'), explains 1-bar repetition, variation modes (fill, humanize, drop), and swing effect. However, it doesn't address whether existing notes are overwritten or how missing AUs are handled, leaving some ambiguity about DAW state changes.

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 an introductory sentence followed by a clean parameter list. Each line serves a purpose—no filler. The length is justified by the need to document 7 parameters and multiple preset options without omitting essential details.

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 all parameters with rich detail, states return values ('notes created, break type, and bars'), and benefits from an existing output schema. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, even with 0% schema descriptions and no annotations.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. Every parameter is documented: break_type lists all presets with musical details, bars includes range and default, variation enumerates modes, unit_index/track_index explain targeting, start_beat and swing give units and ranges. This far exceeds the bare schema.

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 the action ('Create a classic drum break') and specifies the resource and context ('foundation of jungle, DnB, hip-hop, breakbeat'). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'presets' and listing iconic breaks (Amen, Think, etc.), setting it apart from generic pattern tools like create_drum_pattern or create_breakbeat.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (classic drum break genres, presets) and explains variation options, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The genre focus and preset list imply usage scenarios, but exclusionary guidance is missing.

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