mcp_opendaw_create_song_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main behavior (creating labeled markers at section boundaries), the default bar length (8), and return values (markers with positions and total duration). It also candidly notes the unit_index is unused. It could further clarify whether markers are placed at song start or the playhead, and whether existing markers are affected, but the disclosed information is solid.

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 efficiently organized: a concise purpose statement, a brief rationale, clearly separated parameter explanations, a return note, and a useful example. Every sentence adds value, and nothing is redundant.

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 tool is moderately complex with two parameters, one of which requires a structured JSON format. The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, defaults, and return values, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. It could be more complete by specifying where markers are anchored (e.g., beginning of arrangement) and whether the tool overwrites or appends to existing markers, but overall it provides a strong operational context.

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 fully compensates. It explains the sections parameter with a precise JSON format, the default for omitted bars, and the meaning of names. It also clarifies that unit_index is ignored. A concrete example is provided, leaving no ambiguity about the expected format.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Create song structure markers for arrangement (intro/verse/chorus/bridge/outro)'. It explicitly mentions creating labeled markers at section boundaries, and the claim of reducing '5-10 marker calls to one structured call' differentiates it from the sibling add_marker tool.

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?

It gives a clear use case ('enabling agents to reason about song form') and explicitly positions itself as a batch alternative to individual marker calls. It also explains that unit_index is unused 'for API consistency', guiding the agent to ignore it. However, it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternative tools for single-marker operations.

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