mcp_opendaw_create_walking_bass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond basics by detailing the exact algorithm: beat 1 root, beat 2 chord tone, beat 3 passing tone, beat 4 approach note. It also explains the effect of bars_per_chord and states the return value (total notes and summary), providing comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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: purpose, parameter details, algorithm, and example. Each sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff. Length is justified by the tool's musical complexity.

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 algorithm, all parameters, return value, and includes a concrete example. Given the tool's generative complexity and the presence of an output schema, this description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains every parameter inline: chords with JSON example, unit_index, track_index, start_beat, octave with range and MIDI note, velocity range, and bars_per_chord behavior. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'Create a walking bass line over a chord progression.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_bassline or create_electronic_bass by specifying the musical style (jazz, blues, swing) and the walking bass technique.

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?

Provides clear context by stating 'Essential for jazz, blues, and swing,' implying when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance that would earn a 5.

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