mcp_opendaw_create_voice_led_progression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the voice-leading algorithm step-by-step, explains the voice_range constraint, and states the return value ('Returns chord voicings, voice movements, and total notes'). This provides substantial behavioral insight, though it does not mention potential side effects like whether existing notes are overwritten or if specific track prerequisites are required.

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 clear purpose statement, a contrast with the sibling tool, a parameter reference section, and an algorithm breakdown. Every sentence serves a purpose—parameter documentation is necessary given the sparse schema, and the algorithm section adds transparency. It is long but efficiently organized, with no filler.

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 covers the core functionality, algorithm, parameters, and return values, which is comprehensive for a creative tool with 9 optional parameters and an output schema. However, it leaves some operational details ambiguous, such as what exactly 'unit_index' refers to, whether existing notes are cleared, and what happens if the specified track does not exist. These gaps are minor given the overall richness but prevent a perfect score.

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 provides zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. Every parameter (progression, bars_per_chord, octave, velocity, unit_index, track_index, start_beat, note_duration, voice_range) has a prose explanation with defaults, units, and examples. The progression parameter includes concrete chord progression examples with Roman numeral analysis, making semantics exceptionally clear.

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 chord pads with smooth voice leading — minimal movement between chords.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_chord_pads by explaining that create_chord_pads voices chords in root position while this tool re-voices to minimize movement. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope, and directly differentiates from a similar sibling.

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 gives explicit usage context by contrasting with create_chord_pads: 'Unlike create_chord_pads (which voices every chord in root position causing large jumps), this tool re-voices each chord so individual voices move as little as possible.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, and the context 'strings/pads that glide instead of jump' clarifies the intended use case.

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