mcp_opendaw_create_ghost_notes

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

It discloses key behaviors: inserts low-velocity notes at off-beat positions where no notes exist, works on the first note track, and returns count and positions. It also details parameter effects on density and velocity, though it doesn't mention reversibility or failure modes.

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 with a clear lead sentence, parameter list, return value, and example. Every section adds value without unnecessary repetition.

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?

It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and return value. It even includes an example call. The output schema is true but the description already tells what it returns, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 description explains every parameter beyond the schema: unit_index, track_index, region_index, density, velocity, and seed, with ranges and examples. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 explicitly states 'Add ghost notes (quiet grace notes) to existing drum/MIDI patterns', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_drum_pattern by focusing on adding quiet grace notes to existing patterns.

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?

It provides context for when to use it: 'Essential for funk, R&B, neo-soul, and hip-hop drumming.' It also explains it inserts notes at off-beat positions and works on the first note track, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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