mcp_opendaw_create_chord_progression

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It clearly states the tool creates a chord progression, explains how parameters affect placement (unit_index, track_index, start_beat, chord_duration), and notes the return value. It doesn't specify side effects on existing notes or permissions, but the provided context is substantially transparent.

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 moderately sized but every sentence adds value: purpose, chord spec format, root names, chord types, example, parameter meanings, and return value. It is well-structured and avoids 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?

The description covers all five parameters, provides an example, and explains the return value. No annotations exist, but the tool's complexity is fully addressed given the parameter explanations and output description.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter in plain language. It gives allowed root names, chord types, a JSON example, and explains each parameter's meaning, including defaults (start_beat=0, chord_duration=4) with musical context.

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 chord progression from chord names') and contrasts it with creating 15-50 individual notes, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also lists the exact chord root names and types, which differentiates it from other progression tools that may work from keys or styles.

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 says 'one call instead of 15-50 note creations,' which tells the agent to prefer this tool when the user wants to place chord progressions efficiently rather than building them note-by-note. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_progression_from_key or reharmonize_progression, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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