mcp_opendaw_create_ostinato

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pattern length (2-8 notes), repetition behavior, parameter ranges (scale types, root names, velocity 0-1, repeats 1-16), and the return value (total notes and pattern info). It does not explicitly mention placement side effects (track/unit), but as a creation tool this is largely inferable. The added detail goes beyond the schema.

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 appropriately sized: a concise definition followed by a focused parameter list with examples. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. The example pattern strings clarify the format efficiently without unnecessary padding.

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 9 parameters and no annotations, but the description covers the essential music-theory parameters, defaults, and return value. Placement parameters (start_beat, unit_index, track_index) are left unexplained, relying on naming conventions. Given the presence of an output schema and strong coverage of core parameters, the description is mostly complete but could benefit from a brief placement note.

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 compensate. It thoroughly documents scale, root, pattern (with syntax examples), repeats, octave, and velocity, including defaults and ranges. It does not describe start_beat, unit_index, or track_index, but these are placement parameters with self-explanatory names. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states 'Create an ostinato — a repeating melodic/rhythmic pattern as a foundation layer.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the definition distinguishes it from siblings like create_melody or create_riff by emphasizing repetition and foundational role. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 short repeated pattern is needed as a rhythmic/harmonic anchor. It explains the musical function and typical genres. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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