mcp_opendaw_create_note

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

Given there are no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'If no clip exists on the track yet, one is auto-created' and 'Notes are added to the first clip on the track.' It also explains unit_index=-1 search behavior and velocity range, providing valuable context beyond what the schema shows.

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 a compact bullet-style list of parameter explanations followed by two behavioral notes. Every line is necessary and adds value; there is no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action and well organized.

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?

With an output schema present, return value explanation is not required. The description covers all parameters and key behavioral traits (auto-creation, first-clip placement). Minor gaps include lack of error-handling info and bounds for pitch/start_beat, but for a single-note creation tool this is largely sufficient.

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 must fully compensate. It does: each of the six parameters is explained, including pitch reference (60=C4, 69=A4), beat position, duration in beats, velocity range, and unit_index semantics. This entirely fills the gap left by the schema.

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 opens with 'Create a MIDI note on a note track,' clearly stating the verb (create), resource (MIDI note), and destination (note track). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_notes_batch (batch creation) and create_drum_pattern (pattern generation).

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 implies usage by defining the operation and providing context about auto-creating clips and adding to the first clip, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_notes_batch or list_notes. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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