mcp_opendaw_create_house_arrangement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers rich detail about the musical pattern (four-on-the-floor kick, off-beat bass, chord stabs) and states that it returns notes created per track. However, it does not disclose whether existing notes are overwritten, whether the target tracks must pre-exist, or any side effects. This is a notable gap for a mutation 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 well-structured with a lead summary, detailed element breakdown, parameter explanations, and usage examples. It is longer than minimal but each section adds value. The examples at the end are practical and concise. No wasted sentences, though the bullet list partially repeats the initial summary.

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 10-parameter tool, the description covers the creative logic, musical style, parameter meanings, defaults, and return value. The output schema covers return details, so not describing it fully is acceptable. Missing information includes prerequisites (e.g., whether tracks must exist) and overwrite behavior, which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates by explaining most key parameters: bpm with range and default, bars with range, root as 'root note for bass and stabs', octave mapping to MIDI, and track index meanings. However, it omits 'velocity' and 'start_beat', so not all parameters receive the same level of semantic explanation.

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's purpose: 'Create a full house music arrangement — drums + bass + stabs across 3 tracks in one call.' It specifies the verb (create), the resource (house music arrangement with drums/bass/stabs), and the scope (3 tracks), distinguishing it from sibling genre arrangement tools like create_techno_arrangement or create_afrobeat_arrangement.

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 for when to use the tool: when a full house arrangement with a classic Chicago/Detroit feel is needed at 124 BPM. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusions. This gives clear context but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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