mcp_opendaw_set_stereo_tool_panning

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explains parameter meanings but lacks details on side effects, error handling (e.g., if effect_index is not a StereoTool), or whether the change is immediate or reversible. The output is not described, though an output schema exists.

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: one sentence for the purpose followed by three lines for parameters, each on its own line. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids extraneous information.

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?

The description explains parameter semantics but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the unit has a StereoTool effect on the given effect_index) and error conditions. Given the tool has 3 required parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 must compensate. It does so by explicitly defining each parameter: unit_index, effect_index, and panning_mixing with possible values (0=linear, 1=equal-power, or other supported values). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 action ('Set the panning mixing mode') and the resource ('on a StereoTool effect'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like set_track_panning, set_send_pan, etc., by specifying the target effect 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 implies usage by specifying the condition 'must be a StereoTool', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_track_panning or set_send_pan. No exclusion criteria are provided.

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