mcp_opendaw_create_phase_shift

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool copies the source phrase, places it on a parallel or cross-track, and how shift_per_bar, bars, direction, and velocity_scale affect the result. It does not cover edge cases like pre-existing content on the destination track, but it is otherwise quite transparent.

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: a one-line summary, an explanatory paragraph, a sibling comparison, and a detailed Args section. While the historical/genre references add length, they serve to clarify the intended musical use, so no part is wasted.

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 is complex (8 parameters) with no annotations, but the description thoroughly covers the operation, parameter effects, and placement behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details are handled separately; the description could mention prerequisites or error behavior, but it's largely complete.

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?

All 8 parameters are described in detail despite the schema having 0% description coverage. Each parameter gets a meaning, and shift_per_bar, bars, direction, cross_track, and velocity_scale include ranges, defaults, or recommendations.

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 phase-shifted copy of a region' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly explains the accumulating time offset and explicitly contrasts with displace_rhythm, distinguishing the tool from its sibling.

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 explicitly names displace_rhythm as an alternative and explains that phase_shift creates a second copy that drifts further each bar, unlike the single fixed offset of displace_rhythm. It also provides musical context (Steve Reich, techno) and recommends using cross_track for explicit control.

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