mcp_opendaw_diatonic_transpose_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the transformation logic with examples (C major C→D = +1 step), states that it preserves the scale, and specifies the return value ('Returns per-track note counts transposed'). It does not explicitly mention in-place mutation or undoability, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the definition, then provides examples, use cases, and parameter details in a structured layout. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy. The mild length is justified by the need to explain diatonic transposition and document all parameters outside the schema.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, differentiation, parameter semantics, and return value. The output schema exists, so the return-value note is a bonus; nothing critical is missing for an agent to 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?

The schema has zero property descriptions, yet the description covers all six parameters with defaults, examples, valid scale names, and step semantics (e.g., '+3 = up a third'). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning beyond raw types and defaults.

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 first line clearly states 'Transpose notes by scale steps (diatonic) instead of semitones (chromatic)' and contrasts with the sibling transpose_notes, making the tool's unique function unambiguous. The verb 'transpose' plus the resource 'notes' and the specific method 'by scale steps' precisely identifies what it does.

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 explicitly contrasts with transpose_notes ('Unlike transpose_notes ... diatonic transpose preserves the scale') and lists concrete use cases: 'creating variations that stay in key, modal interchange, sequence construction ... walking bass from scale degrees, and counterpoint writing.' This tells an agent when to choose this tool over the chromatic counterpart.

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