mcp_opendaw_add_instrument_automation

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool adds automation points and returns info, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing automation, if the parameter must exist, or any side effects. Lacks details on error behavior or prerequisites like instrument presence.

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?

Well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by examples and parameter explanations. Slightly lengthy but front-loaded and every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly without losing clarity.

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?

Covers parameter details, return value (automation track info and events count), and notes compatibility with various instruments. Lacks mention of error conditions or required project state (e.g., audio unit must exist and be loaded). Overall fairly complete for a 4-parameter tool with output schema.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description provides detailed meaning for all four parameters: unit_index (audio unit index), parameter_name (field name), points (JSON array with example), and sample_index (explained -1 vs specific index). Adds significant value beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool automates a parameter on an instrument connected to an audio unit. Provides specific examples of instruments and parameters (Vaporisateur cutoff, Playfield mute, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings like 'add_automation' (general) and 'set_instrument_param' (single value).

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?

Offers clear context for use: any automatable instrument field with examples. Instructs on when to set sample_index vs -1. Does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for informed selection.

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