mcp_opendaw_create_ratchet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains the generative behavior (repeated notes with changing subdivision), parameter effects (velocity decay, pitch drift), region handling ('-1 = auto-create/append'), and expected return fields. It lacks explicit disclosure about whether existing notes in the target region are preserved or replaced, but it goes beyond a basic create operation.

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 definition, then contextual background, then a parameter dictionary. It is relatively lengthy and includes some illustrative elaboration, but given the complexity (11 parameters, no schema descriptions), the length is justified and each section serves a purpose.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides comprehensive coverage: concept, use cases, parameter semantics, and return values. Minor details are omitted (e.g., exact exponential subdivision algorithm, interaction with existing region contents), but overall it is sufficiently complete for reliable invocation.

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 Args section must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Every one of the 11 parameters is given a meaningful definition with examples, ranges, and special values (e.g., max_subdivisions mapping 4=16th, region_index -1 semantics, subdivisions modes with arrows). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb-object pair: 'Create a ratchet — repeated notes with changing subdivision rate.' It further defines the term with examples (accelerando repeat, Bach ratchet) and scope (Baroque, electronic build-ups, drum fills), making it clearly distinct from other creation tools in the sibling set.

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 musical context for when to use the tool ('Used extensively in Baroque music... electronic build-ups, and drum fills'), implying appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the exclusion guidance implicit.

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