mcp_opendaw_set_effect_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool sets enabled to true or false, but does not mention return values, side effects (e.g., if indices are invalid), or whether the operation is undoable. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 with two short sentences plus parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 3 required parameters and no annotations or output schema described, the description does not cover how to obtain the indices (unit_index, effect_index) or what the return value is. It lacks completeness for an agent to use this tool without additional context from other tools.

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 meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter: unit_index is 'Audio unit index', effect_index is 'Effect position in the chain', and enabled is 'true to enable, false to bypass'. This is valuable given that schema description coverage is 0%. However, value ranges or constraints are not specified.

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 verb 'Enable or bypass' and the resource 'specific effect on an audio unit'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_effect, remove_effect, and list_effects by specifying the exact action on an existing effect.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_effect_parameter, remove_effect). No prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring the unit and effect to exist. The description does not provide context for when bypassing is preferred over enabling.

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