mcp_opendaw_set_time_signature

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 it sets the time signature, without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether existing notes are moved, if it applies to all tracks, if it requires project to be open). This is insufficient 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 very concise: one introductory sentence followed by two clear parameter explanations. No extra words, front-loaded with the action, and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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's simplicity (2 required params, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description explains the parameters adequately. However, it omits what the tool returns or any constraints on valid values, but for a straightforward setter, this is almost complete.

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 the description must compensate. It explains numerator as 'number of beats per bar' and denominator as 'note value per beat' with examples (4=quarter, 8=eighth), adding meaning beyond the integer type and title in 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 the tool 'Set the project time signature' with concrete examples (4/4, 3/4, 6/8, 7/8), differentiating it from siblings like add_signature_change or create_balkan_meter by focusing on the global project setting. It explicitly defines numerator and denominator roles.

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 this tool sets the overall project time signature, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like mcp_opendaw_add_signature_change (which likely adds a local change). No guidance on when to use each, leaving the agent to infer.

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