mcp_opendaw_add_instrument_automation

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It adds valuable context about sample_level vs top-level parameters and the return value, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., whether existing automation is overwritten) or any required permissions, leaving meaningful 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 front-loaded with the purpose, then succinctly covers supported fields, parameter semantics, and return value. Every sentence provides useful information without unnecessary repetition or verbosity.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, conditional behavior) and lack of annotations, the description covers the core workflow effectively and even notes the return info. It could optionally mention prerequisites like instrument existence, but the presence of an output schema fills some gaps.

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 schema has no per-property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's explanations of unit_index, parameter_name, points (including a JSON example), and sample_index (with default value -1) add essential meaning beyond the schema's raw types and names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Automate a parameter on the instrument connected to an audio unit') and provides concrete examples of target instruments and fields (Vaporisateur cutoff, Playfield mute, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling automation tools like add_automation or create_automation_event.

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?

It clearly establishes the context (automating instrument parameters on an audio unit) and explains the conditional usage of sample_index, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of a 5.

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