mcp_opendaw_quantize_velocities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the modes and return stats, but it does not disclose whether the operation modifies notes in place, is reversible, or requires a specific state (e.g., undo support). It describes 'snap' behavior well but lacks broader side-effect disclosure.

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 headline, explanatory paragraphs, an Args list, and a Returns section. It is longer due to the need to explain 7 parameters and 4 modes, but every sentence provides value and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff.

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 complexity (7 params, no annotations), the description is complete: it covers purpose, use cases, all parameters with examples, and return value shape. It even references how to obtain unit_index ('from list_tracks'), aiding invocation. The presence of an output schema means return values are also formally defined, but the description adds meaningful context.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates thoroughly. It explains every parameter in the Args section, including meaningful defaults and examples (e.g., 'levels: 2 = on/off, 4 = pp/p/mf/f, 8 = classical dynamics'), and clarifies how mode values behave. This goes far 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 clearly states the action ('Quantize note velocities to discrete stepped levels') and the resource ('note velocities'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the specific mechanism (snapping to N evenly-spaced levels) and provides relevant musical context ('like MPC 16-level mode').

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 explicit use cases: 'Great for creating uniform, robotic feel (techno, industrial) or restoring clean velocity tiers from humanized performance data.' However, it does not mention alternative tools (e.g., scale_velocity, humanize_notes) or when not to use it, so it lacks direct exclusion or alternative guidance.

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