mcp_opendaw_create_scale_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'generates a sequence of scale notes moving up or down across one or more octaves' and returns total notes and scale info, with parameter-driven placement. It does not detail whether existing notes are overwritten or how tracks are managed, but the core creation behavior and note-count scaling are clearly communicated.

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 with a one-line summary, a parameter list, return-value note, and an example. Despite being long, every sentence adds value—no redundant filler. The front-loaded summary immediately identifies the tool's 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 10-parameter tool, the description covers every parameter with meaningful guidance, provides an example, and states the return format. It is self-contained and complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without external context, even though the output schema is not shown here.

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%, but the description compensates thoroughly by listing all 10 parameters with types, defaults, and examples. It explains meaning beyond schema, such as '1 = 7-8 notes, 2 = 14-15 notes' for octaves and duration notation for step_duration, plus a full usage example.

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 scale run — ascending or descending scale sequence for fills and transitions,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by focusing on scale-based note sequences and their musical applications.

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?

Explicitly states use cases: 'Used for drum fills, melodic transitions, lead build-ups, and bass walks.' This gives contextual guidance on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when NOT to use it, but the application context is sufficient.

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