mcp_opendaw_set_piano_note_scale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return behavior ('Returns success with old and new values') and provides the valid range for the parameter. However, it does not mention whether the change is a view-only setting, whether it affects note data, or any prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the parameter, and the third notes the return value. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains the parameter and return values, leaving little ambiguity. However, it does not explicitly state the scope (e.g., which piano roll editor is affected) or confirm that the change is non-destructive to note data. These are minor gaps for such a simple 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the sole parameter 'scale': its type (number), range (0.5 to 2.0), default (1.0), and behavior at extremes (maximum zoom in/out). This provides meaning well beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set the piano roll note scale (vertical zoom).' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling piano-roll tools like set_piano_time_range (horizontal zoom) and set_piano_keyboard. The vertical zoom clarification removes ambiguity.

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 clear context about when to use the tool by explaining the scale factor semantics (0.5 to 2.0, 1.0 default, 2.0 zoom in, 0.5 zoom out). While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide this is the correct tool for adjusting vertical zoom.

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