mcp_opendaw_create_progression_from_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does explain that the tool generates diatonic progressions, takes a unit/track index, and returns notes/chords/voicings. However, it does not disclose whether existing notes are overwritten, if the tool is non-destructive, or any side effects of placing notes on a track. This is a notable gap for a mutation 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 well-structured: summary, parameter breakdown, return values, and a pipeline example. Even though it's lengthy, each sentence earns its place—especially the style enum details, which are essential for correct usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains scannable via bullet-like lines.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the origin of inputs (detect_key), all parameter semantics, expected return fields, and even a full usage pipeline. It also gives concrete style examples with roman numeral progressions. The only minor absence is error handling or edge cases, but the description covers the core usage thoroughly.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter (key, mode, style, unit_index, track_index, start_beat, chord_duration) is explained with ranges, defaults, and detailed examples. The style parameter is exceptionally well documented with degree patterns and genre labels, providing far more than the schema's bare titles.

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 phrase: 'Auto-generate a diatonic chord progression from a detected key' — clearly stating what the tool does and its input. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_chord_progression by explicitly linking to detect_key output and the 'no manual chord typing' value proposition.

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: it says the tool takes key+mode from detect_key output, shows an explicit pipeline (detect_key → create_progression_from_key → create_harmonic_arrangement), and explains the style options. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the usage context is strong enough to guide an agent.

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