mcp_opendaw_switch_phase

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that switching phases changes which tools are registered and mentions that meta-tools are always available. It does not detail side effects or error conditions, but the core behavior is well described.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, provides context, lists phases in bullet points, and includes an example. Every sentence is informative and adds value without redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one parameter), and the description covers its purpose, usage, and allowed values. It mentions that meta-tools are always available. It does not explicitly describe the output or whether the phase change is immediate, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 only defines 'phase' as a string with no enum or description. The description compensates fully by listing the allowed values (inspect, compose, mix, render) and describing what each phase makes available. This adds significant meaning beyond 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's purpose: 'Switch the active tool phase for phase-based tool loading.' It explains the concept of phases and how they affect tool registration. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings that create or modify content.

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 when to use this tool (when in phase-based mode to switch phases) and lists the available phases with their purposes. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear. It effectively guides the agent on when to invoke this tool vs. the many content-focused siblings.

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