mcp_opendaw_import_midi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behaviors: it parses .mid files, creates note regions, supports formats 0/1, and converts ticks to PPQN. Yet it does not explain whether existing notes are overwritten or merged, what happens on errors, or any permission requirements. This is adequate but leaves important gaps.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with a one-line summary, then details parsing, formats, and tick conversion, followed by a clean parameter list, and ends with return value. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or 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?

Given that the schema has zero param descriptions and no annotations, the description provides a solid foundation: it covers formats, resolution, all four parameters, and the return value. It does not mention potential multi-track MIDI handling or whether tempo/time signature events are imported, but for an import tool this is fairly complete. The output schema exists, so return details need not be over-specified.

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 only parameter names and types with no descriptions (coverage 0%). The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: file_path (absolute/relative), unit_index (-1 searches all AUs), track_index (within AU), and offset_beats (with an example). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import a MIDI file and create note events on a note track.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'export_midi' or 'import_dawproject'. It also specifies parsing behavior, formats, and tick conversion, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 clear context for when to use: importing standard MIDI files into note tracks. It explains supported formats (0 and 1) and the meaning of unit_index -1 for searching all AUs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, 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.