mcp_opendaw_set_crusher_bits

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It notes that effect_index must refer to a Crusher, which is a key constraint. However, it does not disclose behavioral aspects such as permissions, side effects, or whether the change is immediate, leaving some uncertainty about the tool's operation.

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: one sentence for purpose followed by three bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence is meaningful, with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are clearly separated.

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 parameter setter with an output schema (though unseen), the description is nearly complete. It explains all parameters and the constraint on effect_index. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state the tool modifies state or is a write operation, but this is implicit in 'set'. Overall adequate.

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 to all three parameters beyond the empty schema (0% coverage). It explains unit_index as 'AU index', effect_index as 'Effect index in the audio effect chain (must be a Crusher)', and bits as 'Bit depth (1-16, where 16=no crushing, 1=extreme)'. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Set the bit depth on a Crusher (bitcrusher) effect.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that correctly identifies a distinct parameter adjustment among many set_ tools, making it easy for an agent to select it for bit depth control.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_crusher_crush' or other effect parameter setters. An agent would have no context about preferences or prerequisites beyond the implicit requirement of a Crusher effect.

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