mcp_opendaw_create_turn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It does describe the note sequence, parameter effects, and return values, but it omits important side-effect traits such as whether existing notes at the target beat are overwritten, whether a new region is created, or what happens if the specified unit/track index is invalid.

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 concise opening definition, a brief explanatory paragraph about the ornament's musical role, and a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

Given the tool's 8 parameters and lack of annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the ornament pattern, all parameter semantics, and return values ('Returns notes created, pitches used'). The presence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return documentation. It lacks some environmental side-effect details, but overall it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear, human-readable definitions for all 8 parameters with defaults and ranges (e.g., interval: 'Semitones to neighbors (default 2 = whole step). 1 = half step (diatonic)' and duration_beats: '0.5-4, default 1.0"). 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a turn — circular ornament: main → neighbor → main → other neighbor → main.' It immediately distinguishes the turn from sibling tools like create_trill and create_mordent by explaining the unique note sequence and character of the ornament.

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 explains that a turn is one of the four essential baroque ornaments and provides musical context ('Think Mozart piano concertos, Beethoven sonatas, Bach partitas'), which subtly indicates when to use it. It also clarifies upper vs. lower turn variants but does not explicitly state when not to use it compared to a trill or mordent, 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.