mcp_opendaw_set_transpose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It covers the key behavioral trait (no audio playback), the parameter range, and the fact that it returns old/new values. Yet it does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what 'global' fully entails, leaving notable gaps.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and return value. Extremely concise, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the input and return value. It would benefit from a tiny bit more context on scope (e.g., what 'global' means in terms of tracks), but for its simplicity, it's largely complete.

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 only defines 'semitones' as an integer with no description. The tool description adds meaning by specifying it's the number of semitones and provides a valid range (-48 to +48), exceeding baseline schema coverage.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'global transpose for the piano roll view', and it explicitly distinguishes itself from audio-affecting operations with 'does not affect audio playback'. This differentiates it well from sibling tools like transpose_notes.

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 provides clear context: it's for the piano roll view and does not affect audio playback. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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