mcp_opendaw_set_note_advanced

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the skip sentinel values (-1 or -999), gives value ranges for each property, and states the return behavior ('Returns updated values, or error'). This is substantial behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention side effects like in-place mutation explicitly.

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 clear definition followed by bullet-point property details and a concise note on skipping. It is not overly verbose, though the index parameter list adds a few lines that could be merged. Overall efficient and easy to scan.

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 8 parameters but the description covers all of them to some degree, including required index paths and optional advanced properties with sentinel behavior. It also mentions the output ('updated values, or error'), and with an output schema present, that suffices. There are no major gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate. It does so by explaining the four main properties with ranges and meanings, and identifies the four index parameters (unit, track, region, note). The index explanations are terse ('AU index') but sufficient given the parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('advanced note properties'), explicitly enumerating the four properties (chance, cent, playCount, playCurve). It distinguishes itself from basic note property tools by stating these are 'beyond basic position/duration/pitch/velocity', making its purpose clear and unique among siblings.

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 implies usage for advanced note properties and clarifies that basic properties are handled elsewhere ('These properties are beyond basic...'). It does not explicitly name alternatives like set_note_properties, but the scope is clear enough to guide selection.

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