mcp_opendaw_invert_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides the transformation formula, an example, and states that out-of-MIDI-range notes are skipped, plus what the return value contains (count of notes inverted and skipped). It implies the mutation of notes through 'each note's pitch is reflected' but does not explicitly state that notes are permanently modified in the project, though this is evident from the operation.

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: a one-line summary, the mathematical formula, a concrete example, parameter definitions, and return information. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy, and the example clarifies the transformation in an efficient way.

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 (4 parameters, transformation with edge cases) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to specify targets, default behavior, and return info. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., requiring a note track to exist) but that is a generic assumption in this DAW context. Overall, it is a complete and self-sufficient description for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully clarify parameters. It does so for all four: unit_index (AU index), track_index (Note track index), region_index (Region index, -1 = all regions), and axis (Pivot pitch, default 60, with usage tip). The term 'AU index' is terse/domain-specific, but overall the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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+resource: 'Invert melody around a pitch axis — mirror reflection.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like transpose_notes (pitch shift by interval) and rotate_notes (circular rotation) by defining the exact mathematical operation (newPitch = 2*axis - oldPitch) with a concrete example. The scope is unambiguous.

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 thoroughly explains the operation and parameter semantics, including defaults and the region_index=-1 special case for 'all regions on the track.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., transpose_notes) for when a user would want mirror inversion versus a simple transposition, so the guidance is clear but not explicitly exclusive.

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