mcp_opendaw_create_passacaglia

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains how the tool generates notes: repeating bass pattern, evolving chords, variation styles, velocities, and placement parameters. It also mentions return values. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether it adds to existing MIDI data or clears/overwrites notes, which could be relevant for an agent deciding whether to call this 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 long but every sentence earns its place. It opens with a concise definition, gives historical/modern context, differentiates from similar tools, then lists all parameters with examples and defaults. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary parameter details. No fluff or redundant statements.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema in the provided schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the musical concept, parameter semantics, variation styles, time signature handling, and even states return values. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 for all 12 parameters. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained with format, examples, defaults, and sometimes constraints (e.g., 'bass_repeats: 1-16', 'chord_octave: 1-8', 'variation_style: block/arpeggiated/melodic'). The inclusion of concrete musical examples like '36 43 41 36' and 'Cm,Ab,Eb,Bb' makes the parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Create a passacaglia — repeating bass ostinato with evolving harmonies above.' It clearly defines the musical form and provides examples of context (Bach, Buxtehude, film scoring, metal, electronic). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from related sibling tools (ostinato, pedal_point, bordun), making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit usage context and differentiates from alternatives: 'Distinct from ostinato (single repeating pattern), pedal_point (single sustained note), and bordun (drone chord).' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over its siblings. It also gives genre/context examples where passacaglia is appropriate.

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