mcp_opendaw_create_mute_automation

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

No annotations are present, so the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It explains the event format, return data (events created, mute schedule, track index), and notes that the automation track 'plays back predictably every time,' implying idempotent behavior. No contradictions.

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 yet comprehensive: purpose, context, parameter descriptions, return summary, and two practical examples. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still explains return values, which is helpful. It covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, how to configure parameters (with examples), and what to expect back. No 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides essential detail: unit_index as 'AU index' and events as a JSON array of [beat, muted] pairs with a clear example. This surpasses the schema's minimal information, enabling correct invocation.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Create timed mute/unmute automation events on an audio unit.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_track_mute by framing this as a batch automation track approach, providing a specific scope and use case.

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 explicitly situates usage in section dynamics ('mute drums during breakdowns, unmute for drops') and contrasts with multiple set_track_mute calls. It gives concrete when-to-use guidance but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list other alternatives.

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