mcp_opendaw_create_cascara

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so extensively. It explains the two stroke heights (high/unaccented vs. low/accented), the detailed rhythmic structure for each cascara_type, velocity offsets (high +0.1, low -0.05), and the return value (notes created, type, direction, stroke breakdown). It does not mention potential side effects like whether existing notes are replaced or whether the pattern is added to a specific region, but the additive nature is implied by 'Create' and 'Returns notes created.'

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. It front-loads the purpose, provides musical context that is relevant to usage, and then systematically breaks down each cascara_type with a compact notation. The parameter descriptions are concise and the examples at the end are useful. While slightly verbose, every major section earns its place, and the formatting aids readability.

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?

As a rhythmic pattern generator with 8 parameters, the description is quite complete: it defines the pattern variants, stroke semantics, velocity behavior, bar-length guidance, and examples. It does not explain three placement-related parameters (start_beat, unit_index, track_index) or describe edge cases like quantization or interaction with existing notes, but the output schema exists to cover return details, and the musical content is thorough. The gap on placement parameters prevents a perfect score.

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 thoroughly documents 5 of 8 parameters: cascara_type (with per-type notations), bars, high_pitch, low_pitch, and velocity. However, it leaves start_beat, unit_index, and track_index completely undocumented, relying on parameter names and examples alone. Since these are crucial for placement within the DAW, the description only partially compensates for the total absence of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an Afro-Cuban cáscara pattern — the timbale shell rhythm that fills space around the clave.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_clave and create_tumbao by explaining the cáscara's complementary role as one of the three pillars, and it details specific pattern types (son_3_2, son_2_3, guaguanco, mambo). This avoids ambiguity and anchors the tool's identity precisely.

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 gives clear context about when this tool is appropriate: it is used for creating a cáscara pattern that interweaves with clave and tumbao in Afro-Cuban music. It also implies the complementary relationship ('Together with clave and tumbao...'), which helps an agent decide between this and related pattern tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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