mcp_opendaw_create_harmony

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 mentions reading source notes and creating copies, implying non-destructive source behavior, but it does not explicitly state whether original notes remain untouched. It also does not clarify whether output to an existing track merges notes or replaces them. The return value is mentioned, but these behavioral ambiguities prevent a higher score.

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 a concise purpose statement, then lists parameters in a scannable format with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the list is not bloated despite covering 8 parameters.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no annotations, yet the description covers all parameters, source/destination track behavior, and the return value. The output schema exists, so return value details need not be repeated. However, it lacks explicit notes on edge cases such as empty regions or overwrite behavior on existing tracks, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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 input schema provides zero descriptions for its 8 parameters, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose. It details the interval enum values, direction semantics, the -1 sentinel for new_unit_index, and velocity defaults. This is exactly the meaning the schema lacks, 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 clearly states it generates harmony parts from existing notes, enumerating specific intervals (thirds, fifths, sixths, octaves). It explicitly says it reads notes from an existing region and creates harmonized copies, distinguishing it from generation tools that create notes from scratch. The verb+resource is specific and 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 provides clear context regarding when to use this tool: it operates on an existing region, supports diatonic and chromatic intervals, and outputs to a new or existing track. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., create_harmony_line) or specify 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.