mcp_opendaw_insert_rests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool deletes notes, explains the three deletion modes, and describes the effect of shorten_neighbors. While it does not explicitly mention reversibility or undo options, the destructive nature is transparent enough for an agent to infer the operation's impact.

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 with the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args:' section. While longer than the two-sentence ideal, every sentence contributes useful detail necessary for correct invocation. The organization into bullet-like list items aids readability, though some redundancy exists between the opening and the Args section (e.g., both mention position-based operation).

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 (7 parameters, multiple modes, and a destructive operation) and the absence of schema descriptions, this description is notably complete. It covers all parameters, mode semantics, and differentiates from a sibling tool. Minor omissions include edge-case behavior (e.g., when no notes match rest positions) and explicit reliance on undo tools, but the provided information is sufficient for most usage scenarios.

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 description provides comprehensive parameter documentation despite the schema having 0% coverage. It gives meaningful examples, such as rest_positions '0,1,2,3' or '1.5,3.5', explains tolerance_beats in musical terms (32nd/16th note), details each mode's behavior, and specifies the condition for shorten_neighbors. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Insert rests at specified beat positions by removing notes.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool thin_notes by emphasizing its positional approach, making its purpose unambiguous and contextually unique.

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 this tool with thin_notes, stating that unlike thin_notes (which removes by interval/velocity/random strategy), this works positionally. This provides clear guidance on when to choose this tool over an alternative, even though it does not explicitly say 'when not to use it.'

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