mcp_opendaw_add_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool adds an effect and returns an index, omitting details about prerequisites (e.g., unit must exist), mutability, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences plus a bullet list of effect types. It is relatively concise but the list is lengthy (16 items). The structure is clear, with the main action first followed by parameter details and return value usage.

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 has 2 required parameters and an output (effect_index), the description covers the return value's purpose but does not specify the type or format of the index. It also lacks error conditions or prerequisites. With an output schema present (context says true), the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema has 0% documentation coverage (no descriptions for parameters). The description clarifies the effect_type parameter by listing valid values, but does not explain unit_index—its type, range, or how to obtain it. With all the burden on the description, this gap significantly reduces usefulness.

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 'Add an audio effect to an audio unit's effect chain', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'add' tools by specifying the domain (audio effect) and includes a list of valid effect types from a related tool.

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 explains that effect_type must be from mcp_opendaw_list_effects and provides a list. It also links the return value to a downstream tool (mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter), giving context for subsequent steps. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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