mcp_opendaw_add_midi_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the effect is added to the MIDI effect chain, that it processes note data before the instrument, and that the unit type must be an instrument AU. It also mentions the return of effect_index. This is good transparency, though it doesn't mention potential side effects or ordering.

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 concise and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, then two sentences for context and details. No redundant words, and the information is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers the tool's purpose, the separate chain, parameter constraints, and effect_type options. It does not specify the order of effects in the chain or behavior when multiple effects exist, but these are minor gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description compensates fully by explaining that effect_type must be one of the listed values (Arpeggio, Pitch, Velocity, etc.) and that unit_index must be an instrument AU, not output. This adds critical meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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 'Add' and resource 'MIDI effect to an audio unit's MIDI effect chain'. It distinguishes from audio effects by explicitly separating MIDI effects (midiEffects) from audio effects (audioEffects), which differentiates it from siblings like 'add_effect'.

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 clear context: MIDI effects process note data before the instrument, they are chained separately, and the unit must be an instrument AU (not output). It lists valid effect_types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or offer direct alternatives, missing a small opportunity for explicit guidance.

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