mcp_opendaw_set_vaporisateur_osc_param

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by documenting valid parameter values and ranges (e.g., waveform enum, volume in dB). However, it does not disclose behavioral aspects like immediate application, undoability, or side effects. The mention of returning old and new values adds some transparency, but the absence of broader behavioral context leaves gaps.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear opening sentence followed by a structured list of parameters. The bullet-point format for param_name details is efficient. Minor improvement could be made by separating the parameter list more distinctly, but overall it is well-organized and not verbose.

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 covers the core functionality and parameter details adequately for a setter tool. Given that an output schema exists, the mention of return values is helpful. However, it lacks contextual completeness by omitting prerequisites (e.g., Vaporisateur must be in the chain), potential errors, or usage examples. It is minimally viable but not rich.

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% coverage (no descriptions on properties), so the description fully compensates. It provides detailed semantics for each parameter: osc_index range, param_name with valid values and their meanings, value with units and range, and unit_index with auto-detect hint. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 a parameter on a Vaporisateur oscillator.' It specifies the exact resource (Vaporisateur oscillator) and action (set parameter), and distinguishes from sibling tools like set_effect_parameter or set_instrument_param by focusing on a specific device. The listing of valid param_names and their meanings further clarifies its unique role.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., Vaporisateur must be loaded), when not to use it, or compare with other set_* tools. This lack of contextual usage information makes it harder for an AI agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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