mcp_opendaw_shuffle_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key traits: random permutation, seed-based reproducibility, and the effect of shuffle_amount on the fraction of notes shuffled. It also clarifies what each mode preserves (rhythm, pitches, timing windows), making the operation's behavior transparent beyond the raw schema.

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-organized into clear sections (usage, modes, args), with the first sentence delivering the core purpose. While it is relatively long, every sentence provides value—explaining modes, parameters, or reproducibility. The front-loaded contrast with rotate_notes helps the agent quickly categorize the tool.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: the operation, every mode, every parameter, and the deterministic seed behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values are already defined elsewhere, and the description does not need to redundantly explain them. No critical gaps remain.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description's 'Args' section provides explicit meanings and defaults for all 9 parameters (e.g., 'shuffle_amount: 0.0-1.0, fraction of notes to shuffle', 'group_beats: Group size in beats for within_groups mode'). This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds semantic richness that the schema fields lack.

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 and resource: 'Shuffle note data randomly within a region.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rotate_notes by explaining the difference between random permutation and deterministic cyclic shift. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 explicitly names an alternative (rotate_notes) and contrasts it, telling the agent when to prefer this tool over the sibling. It also provides detailed mode-by-mode guidance, including a recommendation for the 'pitches' mode ('Most musical'), which helps the agent decide which mode to invoke. This goes beyond merely stating what the tool does; it actively directs selection.

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