mcp_opendaw_add_midi_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It discloses the chain location, the processing role of MIDI effects, the allowed effect_type values, the instrument-AU requirement, and the return value. It does not cover failure modes, but for an additive operation this is a strong set of disclosures.

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: first sentence states the action, then provides context, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 relatively simple with two parameters, and the description covers both parameters, the conceptual distinction, and the return value. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention the effect's position in the chain or error handling.

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 zero coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: effect_type lists the allowed values and unit_index clarifies it must be an instrument AU. It also adds semantic meaning by describing what MIDI effects do, which is absent from 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 begins with 'Add a MIDI effect to an audio unit's MIDI effect chain,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes MIDI effects from audio effects by referencing au.midiEffects vs au.audioEffects, setting it apart from sibling tools like add_effect.

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 that MIDI effects process note data before the instrument and are chained separately from audio effects, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It also notes that unit_index must be an instrument AU, not an output, acting as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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