mcp_opendaw_set_crusher_crush

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful context: crush is inverted internally, and gives sound quality ranges. However, it does not disclose side effects, undo behavior, or permission requirements, leaving gaps.

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 structured with a clear main sentence, bullet points for parameters, and a value mapping. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or wasted 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?

Given the tool's simple parameter-setting nature and existence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and behavioral quirk (inverted crush). It lacks only minor context about return values, but overall is fairly complete.

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 by explaining each parameter: unit_index, effect_index, and the crush mapping from 0.0 to 1.0 with concrete sonic 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 sets sample-rate reduction (crush) on a Crusher effect, specifying the effect type and the verb 'set' with a clear resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_crusher_bits by focusing on crush specifically.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides value mappings but does not discuss prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools for similar effects.

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