mcp_opendaw_add_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and return value, but does not disclose preconditions (e.g., how to determine unit_index), side effects (e.g., effect chain order, default state), failure modes, or reversibility. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the action. The effect_type list and return-value hint are useful, but there is minor redundancy in listing effect types after already naming the source tool. Overall, it is well-structured with no fluff.

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 and the description provides valid effect types and the return value, as well as a connection to parameter-setting tools. However, it omits guidance on how to obtain unit_index and any behavioral caveats. The presence of an output schema and the description's return-value mention reduce the need for further return details, but the unit_index gap keeps it from being 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does thoroughly explain effect_type with a full list of valid values and a cross-reference to mcp_opendaw_list_effects. However, unit_index—a required integer—receives no explanation at all, leaving a critical gap for the agent.

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 verb and resource: 'Add an audio effect to an audio unit's effect chain.' It distinguishes from related tools like mcp_opendaw_add_midi_effect by explicitly targeting audio effects. The enumeration of valid effect types further clarifies the exact scope of the tool.

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 references mcp_opendaw_list_effects for obtaining valid effect_type values and mentions using the returned effect_index with mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter, implying a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for MIDI effects) or mention alternative tools like mcp_opendaw_remove_effect.

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