mcp_opendaw_rename_unit

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

The description discloses the basic action (renames instrument, optionally sets icon) and the return value (old and new name/icon). However, it does not reveal potential side effects (e.g., whether it triggers a re-render, requires saved state, or is reversible). Given no annotations, more depth would improve transparency.

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: a summary sentence, context about instrument AUs, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The use of bullet-like explanation for parameters is clear and efficient.

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 3 parameters, the description adequately covers the purpose, constraints, and return value. It lacks discussion of error handling (e.g., invalid unit_index) or prerequisites, but overall is sufficient. The presence of output schema is not an issue since the description mentions the return.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: unit_index with constraints (must be >=1, not output AU), name and icon with the ability to skip (empty = skip), and provides icon examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Rename an audio unit's instrument and optionally set its icon.' It specifies that the output AU (index 0) has no instrument and cannot be renamed, distinguishing it from other similar tools like set_device_label or set_clip_label. The verb 'rename' and resource 'audio unit's instrument' are specific and unambiguous.

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 constraints on usage (unit_index must be >=1 and not the output AU) and explains that name and icon can be empty to skip. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_device_label or other rename tools. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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