mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter_int

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains it's a fallback and lists known integer fields, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., what happens if the parameter_name is invalid), permissions, or error behavior. While it covers the basics, it lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, a bulleted list of examples, and a usage note. It is reasonably concise, though the bullet list could be slightly trimmed. Overall, every sentence 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?

Given the complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, usage guidance, and parameters. It could mention return behavior or errors, but it is fairly complete for a tool that sets integer parameters on effects.

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 input schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so it compensates by explaining each parameter (unit_index, effect_index, parameter_name with examples like 'bandCount', 'bits', and value). This makes the schema much more usable.

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's purpose: 'Set an integer parameter on an audio effect.' It specifically lists covered fields (Vocoder bandCount, StereoTool panningMixing, etc.) and distinguishes itself from the generic float setter and device-specific tools like set_vocoder_band_count. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly notes that device-specific tools are preferred when available, and this is a generic fallback. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, which is crucial for correct selection.

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