mcp_opendaw_create_playfield_sample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value but does not state side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an existing Playfield), or failure behavior when auto-detection fails. For a mutation operation, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, followed by a bullet-like parameter legend, and a return value note. Every line adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers the core aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it does not explain what 'duration hint' actually controls, nor does it provide guidance on error cases or prerequisites. Given that the operation is straightforward and the output schema exists, the description is adequate but not fully 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining all four parameters. It provides concrete examples for midi_note and the special meaning of unit_index = -1. However, sample_name and duration_seconds are described only as 'name for the sample slot' and 'duration hint', leaving some ambiguity about their exact semantics.

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 first sentence uses the specific verb 'Add' and the resource 'drum pad to a Playfield drum machine', clearly stating what the tool does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_playfield_samples and set_playfield_sample_enabled. The description also clarifies that 'create_playfield_sample' means adding a pad/sample slot, not just creating a sample.

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 purpose implies when to use the tool (when you want to add a drum pad to a Playfield), but no explicit guidance is given about when not to use it or which alternatives to choose. There is no mention of sibling tools like copy_playfield_sample or create_drum_pattern, so the usage context is only implied.

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