mcp_opendaw_create_glissando

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the note generation behavior (plays every intermediate note at a fixed rate), supports chromatic/diatonic/pentatonic modes, and mentions return values (notes created, pitch list, scale type). It does not explicitly state whether the operation appends to or replaces existing notes, nor does it cover error conditions or permissions.

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: a one-sentence summary, a paragraph explaining the concept and differences, a bulleted parameter list, and a return value note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description is quite complete: it covers all parameters, defaults, return values, and some behavioral context. However, it does not address potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if no AU with note tracks is found) and does not distinguish from the similar create_scale_run sibling, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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. Every parameter is explained with defaults, ranges, and examples (e.g., 'start_pitch: Starting MIDI note (default 60 = C4)' and 'rate: Note rate — "32nd", "16th", "8th", "32t", "16t"'), providing enough detail for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 'Create a glissando — smooth scale run between two pitches,' which specifies the action and object. It also distinguishes itself from riser/bass_drop by explaining the difference between pitch sweeps and scale runs, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 contrasts with riser/bass_drop ('Unlike riser/bass_drop (which are pitch sweeps), glissando plays every intermediate note at a fixed rate'), providing clear guidance for those alternatives. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool create_scale_run, and it lacks a broader 'use this when' statement.

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