mcp_opendaw_set_instrument_param

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 discloses that the tool 'Returns old and new values' and explains the unit_index and param_index behaviors. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions (e.g., if param_name is invalid), or whether changes are immediate or require rendering. The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a bullet-style list of parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No 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 has 4 required parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description explains the purpose, parameter meanings, and that it returns old and new values. It could be more thorough about prerequisites (e.g., requiring an audio unit with an instrument) and error handling, but it is largely complete for common use cases.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (only parameter titles). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index's special value -1, param_name as field name with examples, value as a number, and param_index as an alternative. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not list all possible param_names or value ranges.

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 'Set' and the resource 'parameter on the instrument connected to an audio unit.' It lists the parameters with explanations, and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_effect_parameter by specifying 'instrument' and 'audio unit.' The tool name also reinforces this purpose.

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 explains the unit_index special value -1 for auto-detection and the alternative param_index versus param_name. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative parameter-setting tools (e.g., set_effect_parameter, set_midi_effect_param). The context is implied but not formally contrasted.

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