mcp_opendaw_explode_chords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the splitting algorithm, low-note-to-voice mapping, edge cases (chords with fewer/more notes), and per-parameter behavior for direction and velocity_balance. It does not explicitly state whether the original chord track is preserved or removed, a minor behavioral omission.

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 long but serves the complexity of a 7-parameter tool. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by algorithmic explanation, typical uses, and a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value and the formatting is clear and scannable.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema (which presumably defines return values), the description is impressively complete. It covers purpose, algorithm, parameter semantics, edge cases, and examples, leaving no significant gaps for a tool of this nature.

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, but the description compensates by explaining every parameter in detail: unit_index, track_index, region_index, num_voices (with behavior for mismatched chord sizes), direction (with all enum meanings), target_units (with format and validation), and velocity_balance (with all enum meanings). This goes far beyond the schema.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Explode chords into separate voice tracks.' It explains the algorithm and provides concrete examples (piano → bass + cello + viola + violin), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_chorale or create_harmony.

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 frames when to use it: 'This is the fundamental orchestration technique — converting a chord progression into individual instrumental parts' and gives typical use cases. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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