mcp_opendaw_update_automation_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the partial update behavior, valid value ranges (0.0-1.0 for value and curve_slope), interpolation options ('none', 'linear', 'curve'), condition for skipping fields (-1 or empty string), and that it returns success with updated values. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but overall is transparent enough.

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 well-structured: first sentence gives the core purpose, followed by a note on partial updates, then a clear list of parameters. It could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of the skip conditions already implied in the parameter notes, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 all 6 parameters with their types and skip conditions, given the context of an update operation. It mentions that the tool returns success with updated values (consistent with an output schema). For a tool of this complexity (optional fields, partial update), the description is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

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%, meaning parameter titles provide no meaningful descriptions. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: unit_index (AU index), track_index (value track index), event_index (event index), value (0.0-1.0, skip if -1), interpolation (none/linear/curve, skip if empty), curve_slope (0.0-1.0, skip if -1). This adds critical meaning beyond the raw 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing automation event'), and specifies the modifiable aspects ('value and/or interpolation'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_automation_event, delete_automation_event, and list_automation_events by focusing on updating existing events.

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 mentions that only provided parameters (value >= 0, non-empty interpolation, curve_slope >= 0) are updated, but it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., creating a new event or deleting one). The 'Only updates parameters that are provided' note is helpful but lacks comparative context.

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