mcp_opendaw_transpose_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses helpful behavior: the return value (counts of transposed and skipped notes) and that notes out of MIDI range 0-127 are skipped rather than clamped. However, it omits details like whether the operation is reversible/undoable or what happens to note velocity/duration, leaving some behavioral 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?

The description is compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, then per-parameter explanations, then return value. Every sentence adds value, and the structure makes the information easily scannable.

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 complexity (4 params, no annotations), the description covers the key operational context: parameter semantics, scope defaults, and return value. It lacks discussion of edge cases like overlapping notes or undo behavior, but these are not necessary for basic usage, so it is sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: semitones with sign and examples, and unit_index, track_index, region_index with -1 defaults and scoping meanings. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 action ('Transpose all notes') and the resource ('notes') with the specific parameter 'semitones'. It is distinct from siblings like 'diatonic_transpose_notes' by emphasizing semitones, but it does not explicitly differentiate them, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides parameter semantics (e.g., -1 meanings) which imply how to scope the operation, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., diatonic_transpose_notes). There is no 'use when' or exclusionary context, so no real usage direction beyond the operation itself.

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