mcp_opendaw_create_comparsa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state, 'Creates notes on track_index using GM percussion', which clarifies the core side effect (note creation on a target track). It also lists the exact GM instruments that will be used, adding useful detail. However, it does not disclose whether existing notes are overwritten, whether any project setup is required, or any other side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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-organized into clear sections: definition, instrument mapping, and style variants. Every bullet point adds useful context for a culturally-specific tool. The opening sentence is front-loaded with the primary action. While it could be trimmed by removing background history, the detail is justified for a style-specific generator and maintains 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 styles, multiple percussion instruments) and that an output schema exists, the description is quite complete. It explains the cultural origin, maps each GM instrument to its role, details each style variant, and explicitly states the track-writing behavior. Minor gaps remain around project requirements (e.g., track must be a GM drum track) or interaction with existing notes, but overall it covers the essential context.

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 provides explicit value semantics for the 'style' parameter (listing all five styles with descriptions) and clarifies 'track_index' by saying notes are created there. Other parameters like bars, velocity, tempo_bpm, and start_beat are self-explanatory by name, but 'unit_index' remains undocumented. The addition of style and track_index is valuable but only partially compensates for the complete lack of schema-level 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 'Create Cuban comparsa — carnival procession percussion', which clearly states the tool's function: generating a specific Cuban carnival percussion pattern. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling creation tools by explicitly naming its unique cultural/musical niche and providing detailed genre-specific content.

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 cultural context and enumerates style variants, implying it should be used when a Cuban comparsa percussion groove is desired. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool over alternatives like create_clave or create_tumbao, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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