mcp_opendaw_change_base_signature

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that existing signature change events are recalculated to preserve approximate absolute positions, and details parameter meanings, but does not mention potential failure modes or prerequisites.

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, starting with a clear summary, then providing necessary details and parameter explanations without extraneous words.

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 simple mutation tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and parameter usage adequately, though a note on return format could be added.

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 description adds explicit meaning to both parameters (nominator and denominator) with examples and valid values, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage effectively.

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 'change' and resource 'base time signature of the project', and distinguishes from siblings like 'add_signature_change' by specifying it alters the initial signature and recalculates existing events.

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 explains the effect on existing events and that this changes the base signature, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_signature_change' or 'set_time_signature', leaving some ambiguity.

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