mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter_bool

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It explains that it sets boolean parameters but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or immediate audio processing impact. While straightforward, more detail on behavioral implications 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a bullet list of device fields and parameter explanations. It is reasonably concise, though the device list could be slightly condensed.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It has an output schema (content not shown) so return values are handled. Minor gaps like case-sensitivity of parameter_name, but overall sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates. All 4 parameters are explained with examples, and parameter_name is enriched with a list of valid boolean fields per device type. This provides significant meaning beyond the 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 'Set a boolean parameter on an audio effect' and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly covering 'device-specific boolean fields not exposed through the generic float setter'. It provides specific examples per device type.

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 indicates when to use: for boolean fields not covered by the float setter. It implies alternatives (generic float setter) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools.

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