mcp_opendaw_create_chorale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains generation mechanics: common tones preserved, smooth voice movement, no parallel fifths/octaves, range limits for each voice, and soprano receives the melody. It also lists returned data. This goes well beyond a basic summary, though it doesn't address potential side effects like overwriting existing notes.

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 efficiently structured: opening summary, behavioral detail, then a clear parameter list and returns line. Each sentence serves a purpose—voice ranges, chord types, defaults, and output behavior are all packed in without fluff. It is long out of necessity given the 14 parameters, but nothing feels redundant.

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?

This is a complex tool with 14 parameters and no schema descriptions, yet the description covers every parameter, explains voice-leading logic, gives range constraints, and notes the output structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still mentions them. For a generation tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for any parameter (0% coverage). The tool description compensates by documenting all 14 parameters, including defaults, ranges, and examples (e.g., 'chord_pattern: Comma-separated chord names (e.g. "C,Am,F,G")'). This fully resolves the schema gap and provides actionable meaning beyond the stamped types and defaults.

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 action: 'Create a 4-voice SATB chorale with voice-leading rules.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_harmony or create_voice_led_progression by specifying SATB voicing, voice-leading constraints, and Bach chorale style. This is a concrete verb+resource pairing with immediate differentiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Classic Bach chorale style — foundational for vocal harmonies, string arrangements, synth pad layering.' It implies suitability for traditional SATB writing but does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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