mcp_opendaw_ppqn_to_parts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the conversion accounts for time signature changes and lists the exact return components (bars, beats, semiquavers, ticks, active time signature). This goes beyond the bare schema and clearly frames the tool as a pure, non-destructive read 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 compact and well-structured: action, use case, parameter explanation, and return summary. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple one-parameter conversion tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It states the purpose, parameter semantics, key behavioral nuance (time signature awareness), and expected output. No significant gaps remain for typical usage.

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 provides only a type ('number') with 0% description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining the meaning of position_ppqn and giving the conversion factor (960 = 1 quarter note). This makes the parameter semantics crystal 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 verb ('Convert') and identifies both the input (a PPQN position) and the output (musical parts: bars, beats, semiquavers, ticks). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like ppqn_to_seconds and seconds_to_beats, which convert to other units.

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 'useful for understanding where a position falls in the musical grid' line gives a clear use case, and it notes that time signature changes are taken into account. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient given the distinct output format.

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