mcp_opendaw_create_counterpoint

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 the algorithm (reads notes, offsets by interval, mirrors around midpoint), the effect of default parameters, and the return value. It also notes that velocity is quieter than melody. It lacks explicit statements about whether source notes are modified, but 'reads notes' implies non-destructive behavior.

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 and appropriately sized for a 7-parameter tool. It leads with a clear summary of the tool's function, follows with an algorithmic explanation, and then lists parameters with concise semantic annotations. No wasted words or redundant repetition of the schema.

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 provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, including all parameter semantics and the return value. It covers the main behavioral aspects (contrary motion, interval offset, target placement). It does not describe edge cases (e.g., empty region) or detailed output structure, but the presence of an output schema suggests those are handled elsewhere.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: unit_index, track_index, region_index, interval (with default and meaning as a fifth), new_unit_index (with -1 meaning new synth track), new_track_index, and velocity (with default and quieter-than-melody). This adds substantial semantic value beyond 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 tool generates a counter-melody in contrary motion to existing notes, using specific terminology like 'counter-melody', 'contrary motion', and 'mirrored'. It distinguishes from siblings such as create_counter_melody_from_progression or create_harmony by specifying the algorithm (opposite direction, fixed interval).

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 use: to generate a counter-melody from an existing melody with contrary motion. It explains the source and target parameters, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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