mcp_opendaw_invert_chord_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the mechanics: finds notes at a beat position, groups them as a chord, and moves bottom/top notes by an octave. It also discloses the return format. However, it does not address edge cases (e.g., what happens if no chord is detected) or explicitly state that the operation modifies the region, though this is implied.

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 with a summary, a theoretical explanation, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is somewhat verbose due to the music-theory paragraph, but each section serves a purpose and the content is not redundant. It earns its length without being bloated.

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 core transformation, all parameters, and the return JSON fields (notes_inverted, original/new pitches, chord root). It is reasonably complete for a tool of this complexity, though it lacks explicit edge-case behavior (e.g., handling no notes at the position, mono vs. polyphonic detection, or interaction with other regions). An output schema exists, so return details are partly redundant, but the description still adds value.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section provides detailed meanings for all six parameters, including examples for inversion (1, 2, 3) and direction ('up'/'down'). This fully bridges the gap left by the schema, making parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 action: 'Invert a chord at a specific position — move bottom N notes up an octave (or top N down).' This clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like invert_notes by specifying chord inversion (voicing change) versus melodic inversion.

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 provides clear context for when the tool is used (to change chord voicing by moving notes up/down an octave) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using invert_notes for melodic inversion. The musical explanation implies the use case but stops short of contrasting with other tools.

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