mcp_opendaw_randomize_note_durations

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 distribution modes, variation interpretation, preserve_total scaling, and seed reproducibility. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation modifies note data in place, whether it is reversible, or what happens to notes outside the region/selection — gaps for a mutating tool with no annotations.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary, adds a distinguishing comparison paragraph, and then a well-structured Args list where each parameter gets one concise line. No filler.

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 tool has 9 parameters and a complex domain (distribution modes, beat bounds, total preservation), and the description covers all of them with examples and semantics. It omits explicit mutability/undo warnings, and return values are covered by the output schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: unit_index, track_index, region_index with default interpretation, variation with examples, all 5 distribution modes with one-line definitions, min/max duration with beat examples, preserve_total semantics, and seed purpose.

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 first sentence 'Randomize note durations with controllable distribution' provides a specific verb and object, and the description explicitly contrasts with 'humanize_notes (which adjusts timing+velocity)' and enumerates 5 distribution modes, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly names 'humanize_notes' as the alternative and contrasts the focus ('purely on duration' vs timing+velocity), telling the agent when to choose this tool for duration-based variation. It also gives context for generative variation, making the usage clear.

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