mcp_opendaw_create_dnb_arrangement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it creates three tracks, is tempo-aware (optimized for 170-180 BPM), locks bass and drums rhythmically, and returns 'notes created per track and total.' It lacks explicit warnings about overwriting existing notes or requiring specific track setups, but overall it gives a solid picture of what happens.

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. It opens with the main purpose, uses bullet points for track details, then lists parameters concisely, and ends with practical examples. Every section earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 10 parameters and multiple musical elements. The description covers its purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and examples. It mentions the return value and has an output schema, so detailed return structure isn't needed. The only minor gaps are the undocumented 'start_beat' parameter and some ambiguity about 'AU index', but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful explanations for 9 of 10 parameters, including ranges and defaults (e.g., 'bpm: Tempo (160-185, default 174 = classic DnB)'). It omits 'start_beat', which is a small gap, but overall it adds significant context beyond the schema's titles.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Create a full drum & bass arrangement — drums + bass + pad across 3 tracks in one call.' It identifies the specific genre (DnB) and differentiates it from other genre arrangement tools by detailing the three-track structure (drums, bass, pad) and the musical content of each.

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 explains when to use this tool: when you need a complete multi-track DnB section rather than individual patterns. It says 'Instead of creating individual patterns, it generates a complete DnB section.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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