mcp_opendaw_create_tumbao

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the pattern characteristics and mentions it returns notes created, tumbao type, and stroke breakdown. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether it replaces existing notes, creates new regions, or has prerequisites such as a selected track.

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 and front-loaded: concise purpose, contextual background, parameter list, return value, and example. Each section earns its place, and the length is justified given the need to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 has 9 parameters and no annotations, and the description covers most but not all relevant aspects. It omits clarifications for start_beat, unit_index, and track_index, and does not explain how the tool integrates with existing DAW state (e.g., whether it creates a new region or modifies an existing one). The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but gaps remain.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains tumbao_type, bars, low_pitch, open_pitch, slap_pitch, and velocity in detail, and track_index appears in the example. However, start_beat, unit_index, and track_index are not explicitly described, leaving a gap for those parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create an Afro-Cuban tumbao (conga) pattern'. The verb 'create' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_clave or create_cascara by focusing on a tumbao specifically.

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 explaining that tumbao is the rhythmic foundation of salsa and describes each tumbao_type variant. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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