mcp_opendaw_create_pedal_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose important behavioral traits: the retrigger_pedal distinction ("pedal re-triggers at each chord change. If false, one long sustained note") and return values ("Returns notes created, chord count, pedal duration"). However, it fails to disclose potential side effects for a write operation in a DAW — crucially, whether existing notes are overwritten or preserved, and what prerequisites must hold for the target track/AU.

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: purpose definition → musical context → parameter breakdown → return values. The front-loaded definition is immediately clear. The musical context paragraph is illustrative but somewhat verbose relative to the agent's needs; it could be condensed to one sentence. The parameter section is necessarily long because schema coverage is 0%, so the length is largely justified.

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?

This is a complex 11-parameter compositional tool, and the description covers its function, musical contexts, complete parameter semantics, and return values (output schema exists, so detailed return docs aren't required). The notable gap is the lack of explicit side-effect disclosure — whether the tool appends notes, replaces existing content, or creates new regions — which matters for a DAW writer tool with no annotations. This 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by documenting all 11 parameters with rich semantics: defaults and ranges ("bars_per_chord: Bars each chord lasts (1-8, default 1)"), value formats ("Comma-separated chord names (e.g. "Cm,Ab,Eb,Bb")"), supported chord types ("maj, min, m7, maj7, dom7, sus2, sus4, dim, aug"), time signature examples ("3/4=3, 4/4=4, 6/8=6"), and MIDI meaning ("36 = C2, low and powerful"). This far exceeds what the schema provides.

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 pedal point — sustained bass tone under changing chords." This precisely defines the tool's function and its musical concept, distinguishing it from similar compositional siblings like create_ostinato, create_bordun, and create_ground_bass by describing a sustained bass under changing harmony (not a repeated pattern). The cultural examples (Hans Zimmer drones, Bach organ preludes, rock ballads) further anchor the purpose.

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 usage context: "A foundational technique in film scoring (Hans Zimmer drones), organ preludes (Bach), and rock ballads" — telling the agent when this technique is stylistically appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., vs. create_ground_bass or create_chord_progression), so it falls short of a 5.

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