mcp_opendaw_set_bus_enabled

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that bus_index comes from list_audio_buses and that 0=primary output, but does not mention side effects, error behavior, or if muting a bus affects audio routing. Basic but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the purpose, followed by two clear parameter explanations. No extraneous text. Every word 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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple toggle tool: it explains the parameters and indicates that bus_index comes from list_audio_buses. Although it doesn't mention return values (output schema exists), it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Minor gaps in error handling.

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 significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains bus_index as derived from list_audio_buses and the meaning of enabled. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Could be more precise about invalid indices.

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 action (enable or mute) and the resource (audio bus), and adds context about FX bus A/B comparison. It effectively distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools like set_bus_color.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions under which it should or should not be used. It simply states the action without contextual prerequisites or exclusions.

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