mcp_opendaw_create_fugue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses algorithmic behavior thoroughly: how subject is stated, imitated with tonal/real answer, optional countersubject, and stretto overlap. It also explains defaults and ranges. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether existing notes in the target track are deleted or if a new region is required, which is a minor transparency gap for a creation tool.

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 and front-loaded. The opening two sentences establish the purpose and sibling distinction; then a clear parameter list with inline explanations; finally a return summary. Every sentence provides necessary information for a tool with 14 parameters. It is structured to be scannable without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (14 params, no annotations, no explicit output schema shown), the description is complete: it explains the musical algorithm, all parameter semantics, the return values, and how it differs from a sibling. It even provides guidance on musical choices (e.g., more voices = denser counterpoint). This covers the full context an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 compensates fully by explaining all 14 parameters with types, ranges, defaults, examples, and cross-relations (e.g., countersubject must be same length as subject, key_root for tonal answer). This exceeds what the schema provides, making parameter semantics excellent.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Create a fugue — polyphonic composition with subject, answer, and countersubject.' It defines the musical form and distinguishes it from sibling create_canon, which is exactly what a good purpose statement should do.

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 explicitly compares to create_canon: 'Unlike create_canon (strict imitation), a fugue uses tonal answers (adjusted intervals) and independent countersubjects.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over an alternative. It also explains optional features (stretto, countersubject) and parameter choices, providing strong usage context.

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