mcp_opendaw_create_hocket

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains split modes with concrete examples, defaults, and return values ('notes created, voice assignment, total duration'). However, it doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., insufficient tracks) or side effects on existing data, leaving minor gaps in transparency.

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 one-line purpose, a brief explanatory paragraph, and a bulleted parameter list. The historical context is interesting but consumes precious space; it could be trimmed without losing functional value. Overall, it's concise relative to the 8 parameters covered.

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 description covers all parameters, explains the concept, and mentions return values. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., need for an existing AU with note tracks) and error scenarios, but the default behavior for unit_index is noted. This is nearly complete for a creation tool of moderate 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: melody format, voices range, split_mode options with distribution examples, unit_index fallback, track_index usage, start_beat, note_duration with default, and velocity range. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 the tool creates a hocket, defined as 'a single melodic line split between voices/tracks'. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_chorale or create_counterpoint. The historical context further clarifies the musical technique.

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 what a hocket is and how the tool works, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like create_chorale or create_counterpoint exist for similar melodic splitting tasks, and the description doesn't delineate scenarios where hocket is preferred.

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