mcp_opendaw_create_reggae_percussion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behaviors: it creates notes on a specified track_index using specific GM percussion pitches, and explains how swing offsets off-beat hats. However, it does not clarify whether existing notes are overwritten, how tempo_bpm interacts with style-specific BPM ranges, or what unit_index means, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and organized as a readable list of styles with consistent formatting. While the historical context sentence and detailed per-style BPM ranges add some length, the information is relevant and earns its place, with only minor redundancy.

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 is rich for the core purpose—it explains all six styles, swing behavior, and target pitches—but it omits semantics for several parameters (bars, velocity, start_beat, unit_index) and does not clarify the relationship between tempo_bpm and style-defined BPM ranges. Given the tool’s complexity and optionality, the description is helpful 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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for missing property descriptions. It explicitly defines the style values, swing range, and track_index, and lists the GM pitches used, but leaves bars, velocity, tempo_bpm, start_beat, and unit_index unexplained, so it only partially covers the parameter space.

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 clear, specific statement: 'Create Jamaican reggae percussion patterns across 6 styles.' It names the resource (reggae percussion) and the action (create), and the detailed style list distinguishes it from sibling genre-creation tools like create_reggae_arrangement and create_clave.

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 by enumerating six reggae styles with characteristics and tempo ranges, which implicitly tells the user when to select each style. However, it does not explicitly compare alternatives or state when to use this over sibling tools like create_reggae_arrangement or create_drum_pattern.

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